° - Wits ’ es 
eet rt eee eee ie 
Te > , ~ 


> 


reat 


eels 


; eral 


, Tice 4 


ty) tht 
Pah Ou 
Pregaes 


tf 
an unt 
eb 
i" 7 
TD LA HT be 
+e ® 


a ley “1 , 
; ray 
pie 


iad 
Apes 


ny 
baa Wy 


Hag. 
an) ier i 
7) yp 


Hin a 
Ay 
hs 
hw mech re 
1 Hue 


mo 


es ay ty iy 
Ath cleiah Ses 
f Ms 


Prey rot. 
F Maat 


i Hy BY 


a 


Hise (He 


Le 


Heal i 


i aah 4 aye eth 
gh cat EN 
5 NectGe 
teas ia rat 


aN 
At e 
ne ap ah 


1 
Hanh 


Bal 
Leto 


abe 


Ue weg 
an ee 
Daisey iM / if 


Pidialt it 


cane) 


nit ie We ies i 
itv tet 

ROHN beh bit 
MACPiee ley) f 
17 eo ted dh 


sf if 
digit ae 
ay Pa 
fit tw 


foe ne 
' ty sr ha? fy easy 
fy 


ei aif aN mt 
ihe 
bad 


re 


er 
Y Udielal eli’ 
7? Tih om co Ae hes Prin 


‘J 
oH ih 

ripe 

\" “6 aud 


NL ars 

shh 

hath 
Ae 


pie 


Vibe 
Wael oenl agit 


sles 

be Senet 

sana Hite Pa ed Utghy 
SEM ag HM) 


ny i ai 
o a 
ae I oa x 
i tie 


J 
a bie 


ee 
bets tos 


if) 
; meth ae 


cy Py Afr a ib 
N, 1s rack itt ae 


es 


ne BP en at ve 


a 
Pe) 
oh 


His 


ai i an 

ryt 4 

H Af 
ih 


Bai 


feet} 
oni iy 


aie 
ae bi 
+ i 


pion 
NR 4 tT 


Pha 


a sie 


we t 
4 aes 
i Je apaed aal 
Rae iay 
holh 


Pl ted 
as des He 
sees 
hy, 


ir it) 
ela the 51 

ee Or 
die ¥ 
CHUA hon he 
PFT He 
ot! Ot 


43 M's 
ee bie wey 
- his 

Mr ray We rat 


oy h bit ie aati 
He 4 


bites 
y Ait rath 


Py pba 


ais 

eet 7 

Vy shes Mihai 
it ald mare Leis: 

aa orks i: i vanes 


oe 


aN te eta 
fi i a i AM 
Bich ta i 


ty 
rie 


ynatehs 
L bid Whe 
sites a at 
vai 
ona ” tet ae i 
vm Pot raedeat 1 y, aide poh 
fe hetaetat olen aR i 
ntl earth 


bea Tens! 

ass 
hi ses it 
iiigntearees 




















"ELLICOTT’S 


COMMENTARIES, 


CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL, 


ON 


THE EPISTLES OF SAINT PAUL, 


WITH 


REVISED TRANSLATIONS. 


VOLUME II. 


PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 
1 TIMOTHY, 2 TIMOTHY, TITUs. 





BOSTON: 
DRAPER AND HALLIDAY, 


NOS. 58, 60, 62, AND 64 CORNHILL. 
NEW YORK: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILA.: SMITH. ENGLISH, & CO. 
CINCINNATI: GEO. S. BLANCHARD «& CO. 





A 


CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL 


COM IN ACK Y: 


ON 
ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES 


TO THE 


PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, 


AND TO 


PHILEMON, 


Wii EA REEVES 'oRANS LA TLON, 


ay: 


RT. REV. CHAS. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., 


LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. 





BOSTON: 
DRAPER AND HALLIDAY, 


NOS. 58, 60, 62, AND 64 CORNHILL. 
NEW YORK: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILA.: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO. 
CINCINNATI: GEO. S. BLANCHARD «& CO. 


wi S6'. 


re ak nit 
+ wh lathe si 
» Fa 2 it 
eon oe 
+ bong 7 
y Be « Sn. GA aa 


y 
ot. ? vd y 





PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 





THE present volume forms the fourth portion of my Commentary on St. 
Paul’s Epistles, and contains an exposition of the important Epistles to the 
Philippians and Colossians, and of the graceful and touching Epistle to Phi- 
Jemon. 

The notes will be found to reflect the same critical and grammatical char- 
acteristics, and to recognize the same principles of interpretation as those 
which I endeavored to follow in the earlier portions of this work, and on 
which the experiences slowly and laboriously acquired during this under- 
taking have taught me year by year more confidently to rely. There is, 
however, a slight amount of additional matter which it is perhaps desirable 
briefly to specify. 

In the first place, I have been enabled to carry out more fully and com- 
pletely a system of reference to the great versions of antiquity, and have 
spared no pains to approach a little more nearly to those fresh and clear, yet 
somewhat remote, well-heads of Christian interpretation. In the notes on the 
Pastoral Epistles it was my endeavor to place before the reader, in all more 
important passages, the interpretations adopted by the Syriac, Old Latin,’ 
and Gothic Versions. To these in the present volume I have added refer- 
ences to the Coptic (Memphitic) and Ethiopic Versions; to the former as 
found in the convenient and accessible edition of Botticher, to the latter as 
found in Walton’s Polyglott, but more especially and exclusively to the ex- 
cellent edition of the Ethiopic New Testament by the late Mr. Pell Platt 
(1830), published by the Bible Society. These have been honestly and 
laboriously compared with the original ; but, as in the preface to the Pastoral 
Epistles, so here again would I earnestly remind the reader that though I 


1T have now adopted this term, feeling convinced that the term ‘ Italic’ is likely to 
mislead. The latter I retained in the previous Epistles, as sanctioned by common usage ; 
I was, however, fully aware that the term ‘ vetus Itala’ really belonged to a recension, and 
not to an independent version. In the present Epistles I have derived the Old Latin from 
the translation in that language as found in the Codex Claromontanus. 


LV, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


have labored unflinchingly, and have spared no pains faithfully to elicit the 
exact opinion of these ancient translators, I still am painfully conscious how 
very limited is my present knowledge, and many must needs be my errors and 
misconceptions in languages where literary help is scanty, and in applications 
of them where I find myself at present unaided and alone. Poor, however, and 
insuflicient as my contributions are, I still deem it necessary to offer them ; for 
I have been not a little startled to find that even critical editors of the stamp 
of Tischendorf,! have apparently not acquired even a rudimentary knowl- 
edge of several of the leading versions which they conspicuously quote: nay 
more, that in many instances they have positively misrepresented the very 
readings which have been followed, and have allowed themselves to be misled 
by Latin translations, which, as my notes will passingly testify, are often sadly 
and even perversely incorrect. I fear, indeed, that Iam bound to say that 
on the Latin translations attached to the now antiquated edition of the Cop- 
tic New Testament by Wilkins, from which Tischendorf appears to have 
derived his readings, little reliance can be placed; and on that attached to the 
Ethiopic Version in Walton’s Polyglott even less, because not only as a trans- 
lation is it inexact, but as a representative of the Ethiopic Version, worse than 
useless, as the text was derived from the valueless edition of 1548 (Rome), 
which in its transfer to the Polyglott was recruited with a fresh stock of inac- 
curacies. 

It is fair to say that in this latter version Tischendorf appears to have 
also used the amended translation of Bode, but even thus he is only able to 
place before the reader results derived from an approximately accurate trans- 
lation of a careless reprint of a poor original; and thus to give only inade- 
quately and inaccurately the testimony of the ancient Ethiopic Church The 
really good and valuable edition of Pell Platt has lain unnoticed and un- 
used, because it has not the convenient appendage of a Latin translation. 
The same remark applies to the edition of the Coptic Version by Schwartze 
and Botticher, which, though differing considerably less from that of Wilkins 
than the Ethiopic of Platt from the Ethiopic of the Polyglott, is similarly 
devoid of a Latin translation, and has, in consequence, I fear, received pro- 
portionately little attention. 

Under these circumstances, when our knowledge even of the true readings 
of these two versions is still so very limited, I do not shrink from offering my 
scanty contributions, which, though intentionally exegetical in character, may 
be found to some extent useful even to a critical editor. Gladly, most gladly, 


1The fourth volume of the new edition of Horne’s Introduction will show how con- 
scientiously our countryman Dr. Tregelles has acted in this respect, and what pains he 
has taken to secure an accurate knowledge of versions in languages with which he himself 
did not happen to be acquainted, 


‘ 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vv 


should I welcome other laborers into the same field, nor can I point out to 
students in these somewhat intractable languages a more really useful under- 
taking than a correct Latin translation of Platt’s Ethiopic Version, and a 
similar translation of the portions of the Coptic New Testament published by 
Schwartze and his less competent successor. 

I will here add, for the sake of those who may feel attracted towards these 
fields of labor, a few bibliographical notices, and a few records of my own 
limited experiences, as these may be of some passing aid to novices, and may 
serve as temporary finger-posts over tracks where the paths are not well-trod- 
den, and the travellers but few. : 

In Coptic, I have used with great advantage the grammar of Archdeacon 

' Tattam, and the lexicon of the same learned editor. The more recent lexi- 
con of Peyron has, I believe, secured a greater reputation, and as a philo- 
logical work seems deservedly to rank higher, but after using both, I have 
found that of Tattam more generally useful, and more practically available 
for elementary reading, and for arriving at the current meaning of words. 
The very valuable Coptic grammar of Schwartze cannot be dispensed with 
by any student who desires to penetrate into the philological recesses of that 
singular language, but as a grammar to be put into the hands of a beginner, 
it is of more than doubtful value. 

In Ethiopic, the old grammar of Ludolph still maintains its ground. The 
author was a perfect Ethiopic enthusiast, and has zealously striven, by the 
most minute grammatical subdivisions, to leave no peculiarities in the Ethi- 
opic language unnoticed and unexplained; the student, however, must not 
fail to exercise his judgment in a first reading, and be careful to confine him- 
self to the general principles of the language, without embarrassing himself 
too much with the many exceptional characteristics which this difficult? lan- 
guage presents. These leading principles, especially in the second edition, 
are sufficiently well-defined, and will easily be extracted by any reader of 
moderate sagacity and grammatical experience. The recent Ethiopic gram- 
mar of Dillmann has passed through my hands, but my acquaintance with it 
is far too limited to pronounce on it any opinion. As far as I could judge, 
it seems to be very similar to that of Schwartze in Coptic, and only calcu- 
lated for the more mature and scientific student. With regard to lexicons, 
there is, I believe, no better one than that of Ludolph (2ded.). That of 
Castell, alluded to in the’ preface to the Pastoral Epistles, I have since found 

to be decidedly inferior. 

I do venture then to express a humble hope, that even with no better 


1 This epithet must be considered as used subjectively. To me, who am unfortunately 
unacquainted with Arabic, this language has presented many difficulties. The Arabic 
scholar would very likely entirely reverse my judgment. 


VE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


literary appliances than these, earnest men and thoughtful scholars may be 
induced to investigate patiently and carefully the interpretations of these 
ancient witnesses of the truth. Surely the opinion of men, who lived in such 
early ages of the Church as those to which the chief ancient versions may all 
be referred, cannot be deemed unworthy of attention. Surely a version 
like the old Syriac, parts of which might almost have been in the hands of 
the last of the apostles, a venerable monument of almost equal antiquity like 
the Old Latin, a version so generally accurate as that of Ulfilas,’ a version 
so distinctive as that of the Coptic, and so laborious as Platt’s Ethiopic,’ can- 
not safely be disregarded in the exposition of a Divine Revelation, where 
antiquity has a just and reasonable claim on our attention, and where novelty 
and private interpretation can never be indulged in without some degree of 
uncertainty and peril. 

With these three earthly aids, first, an accurate knowledge of Hellenic 
Greek ; secondly, the Greek commentators, and thirdly, the five or six prin- 
cipal ancient versions, we may (with humble prayer for the illuminating grace 
of the Eternal Spirit) address ourselves to the task of a critical exposition 
of the Covenant of Mercy; we may trust that, though often with clouded 
and holden eyes, we may yet be permitted to see and to recognize some sure 
and certain outlines of Divine Truth: but without any of these, or with one, 
or even two, to the exclusion of what remain, dare we hope that our inter- 
pretations will always be found free from uncertainties and inconsistencies, 
and will never exhibit the tinges of individual opinion, and the often estima- 
ble, but ever precarious, subjectivity of religious predilections ? 

I fear indeed that these remarks are but little in unison with popular 
views and popular aspirations ; I fear that the patient labor necessary to per- 
form faithfully the duty of an interpreter is unwelcome to many of the for- 
ward spirits of our own times. To be referred to Greek Fathers when sua- 
sive annotations of a supposed freer spirit, and a more flexible theology claim 
from us a hearing; to be bidden to toil on amid ancient versions, when a 
rough and ready scholarship is vaunting its own independence and sufficiency ; 
to weigh in the balance, to mark and to record the verging scale while relig- 
ious prejudice is ever struggling to kick the beam, —all seems savorless, 
unnecessary, and impracticable. I fear such is the prevailing spirit of our 

own times; yet, amid all, I seem to myself to descry a spirit of graver 


1 Some tinges of Arianism have been detected in this Version, e. g. Phil. ii. 8, ‘ ni vulva 
rahnida visan sik galeiko [surely not a correct translation of Yoa] guba,’ but are not sufii- 
ciently strong to detract seriously from the general faithfulness of the Version. 

2 J regret that I cannot in any way agree with my valued acquaintance Dr. Tregelles, 

“in his judgment on the Ethiopic Version : in St. Paul’s Epistles I have found it anything 
but ‘the dreary paraphrase’ which he terms it in his remarks in Horne, Introduction, Vol. 
Iv. p. 819. 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. VII 


search winning its way among us, a more determined allegiance to the truth, 
a greater tendency to snap the chains of sectarian bondage, and it is to those 
who feel themselves animated by this spirit, who are quickened by the desire 
at every cost to search out and to proclaim the truth, who think that there is no 
sacrifice too great, no labor too relentless, in the exposition of the word of 
God, — to them, and to such as them, I would fain, with all humility, commend 
the imperfect and initial efforts to elicit the testimony of the ancient ver- 
sions which these pages contain, and it is from them that I hopefully look for 
corrections of the errors and inaccuracies into which my inexperience will, 
I fear, be often found to have betrayed me. 

Another addition which I have striven to make, and which the profound 
importance of the subject has seemed to require, consists in the introduction 
of a few doctrinal comments upon the passages in these Epistles which relate 
to our Saviour’s divinity; and this I trust no one will deem supererogatory. 
The strongly developed tendencies of our own times towards humanitarian 
conceptions of the nature and work of our divine Master, — tendencies often 
associated with great depth of feeling and tenderness of sympathy, — seem 
now to demand the serious attention of every thoughtful man. The signs of 
the times are very noticeable. The divinity of the Eternal Son is not now 
so much assailed by avowed heretical teaching, as diluted by more plausible, 
perhaps even more excusable, but certainly no less destructive and perni- 
cious, developments of human error. The turmoil of Arian and semi-Arian 
strife has comparatively ceased, to be succeeded, however, by a more delu- 
sive calm, and a more dangerous and enervating repose. In the popular 
theolosy of the present day, the Eternal Son is presented to us under aspects 
by no means calculated to rouse any active hostility or provoke any earnest 
antagonism. All is suasive and seductive: our Lord is claimed as united to 
us by human affinities of touching yet precarious application; He is the 
prince of sufferers, the champion of dependence and depression, the repre- 
sentative of contested principles of social union; His crucifixion becomes the 
apotheosis of self-denial, the atonement the master work of a pure and subli- 
mated sympathy, — all principles and aspects the more dangerous from in- 
volving admixtures of partial truth, the more harmful from their seeming 
harmlessness. It is against this more specious and subtle form of error that 
we have now to contend; it is this plausible and versatile theosophy that 
seeks to ensnare us by its appeal to our better feelings and warmer sympa- 
thies, that seems to edify while it perverts, that attracts while it ruins, that it 
is now the duty of every true servant of Jesus Christ to seek to expose 
and to countervail. And this can be done in no way more charitably, yet 
more effectually, than by simply setting forth with all sincerity, faithfulness, 
and truth, those portions of the word of life which declare the true nature of 


Vill PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


the Eternal Son in language that no exegetical artifice can successfully ex- 
plain away, and against which Arian, semi-Arian, Deist, and Pantheist, have 
beaten out their strength in vain. 

Under these feelings, then, in the important doctrinal passages in these 
Epistles which relate to our Lord’s divinity, Ihave spared no pains in the 
endeavor candidly and truthfully to state the meaning of every word, and to 
put before the younger reader, in the form of synopsis or quotation, the great 
dogmatical principles and deductions which the early Greek and Latin Fa- 
thers, and more especially our own Divines of the seventeenth and early part 
of the eighteenth century have unfolded with such meek learning, such per- 
spicuity, and such truth. I need scarcely remark that here I have had to 
rely solely on my own reading; for in the works of the best German com- 
mentators sound dogmatical theology will I fear too often be sought for in 
vain, and even in the more recent productions of our own country, subjective 
explanation and an inexact and somewhat diffiuent theology have been 
allowed to displace the more accurate and profound deductions of an earlier 
day. On this portion of my labors more than on any other may the Father 
of Lights be pleased to vouchsafe His blessing, and to overrule these efforts 
to issues beyond their own proper efficacy, and to uses which my earnest 
aspirations, but not my sense of their realization, have presumed to contem- 
plate. 
A few additions will be found in what may be termed the philological 
portion of this Commentary. Wherever the derivation of a word has seemed 
obscure, and an exact knowledge of its fundamental meaning has seemed of 
importance to the passage, I have noted in byackets its probable philo- 
logical affinities, and stated, with all possible brevity, the opinions of modern 
investigators in this recently explored domain of literature. Gladly ‘would I 
have found this done to my hand in the current lexicons of England or Ger- 
many, as it would have saved me not only much labor, but many unweleome 
interruptions ; but upon the philology of modern lexicons I regret to say 
very little reliance can be placed. Even in the otherwise admirable lexicon 
of Rost and Palm, which, I may here remark, is now brought to a completion, 
it is vexatious to observe how much philology has been neglected by its com- 
pilers, and how uncertain and precarious are the derivations of all the more 
difficult words. 

With regard to references to former notes, which, now that my work has 
extended to eight Epistles, have necessarily become somewhat numerous, I 
have endeavored to observe the following rule. Where the reference has 
appeared of less moment, I have contented myself with a simple allusion to 
the former note. Where the reference has seemed of greater moment, and 
the note referred to contains any critical or grammatical investigations, I 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ix 


have generally endeavored to embody briefly in the note before the reader 
the principles previously discussed, leaving the fuller detail to be sought for 
in the note referred to. My desire is thus to make each portion of this work 
as much as possible an independent whole, and while avoiding repetition still 
to obviate, as far as is compatible with the nature of a continuous work, the 
necessity of the purchase or perusal of foregoing portions. 

A few concluding words on the Translation. I have more than once had 
my attention called to passages in former commentaries, where the translation 
in the notes has not appeared in perfect unison with that in the Revised Ver- 
sion. In a few cases J fear this may have arisen from an omission to correct 
the copy of the Authorized Version which Jay beside me, but I believe in 
most instances these seeming discrepancies have arisen from the fact that the 
fixed principles on which I venture to revise the Authorized Version do not 
always admit of an exact identity of language in the version and in the note. 
In a word, the translation in the note presents what has been considered the 
most exact rendering of the words taken per se; the Revised Version pre- 
serves that rendering as far as is compatible with the ler operis, the context, 
the idioms of our language, or lastly, that grave and archaic tone of our ad- 
mirable version which, even in a revised form of it designed only for the 
closet, it seemed a kind of sacrilege to displace for the possibly more precise, 
yet often really less expressive, phraseology of modern diction. Needlessly 
to divorce the original and that version with which our ears are so familiar, 
and often our highest associations and purest sympathies so intimately bound, 
is an ill-considered course, which more than anything else may tend to foster 
an unyoked spirit of scriptural study and translation, alike unfilial and pre- 
sumptuous, and to which a modern reviser may hereafter bitterly repent to 
have lent his example or his contributions. 

I desire in the last place to record a few of my many obligations. These, 
however, are somewhat less than in earlier portions of this work, as the great 
and unintermitting labor expended in the examination of the ancient ver- 
sions, especially the Coptic and Ethiopic, has left me little time, and, perhaps 
I might say little need, for consulting commentaries of a secondary character. 
These it is not necessary to specify, but the student who may miss their names 
on my present pages will, I truly believe, have gained far more from the an- 
cient versions that have been adduced, than lost by the writers that have 
been left unnoticed. 

Of the larger commentaries, I have carefully and thoughtfully perused 
the excellent commentary of my friend, Dean Alford. From it I have not 
derived much directly, as I deemed it best for the cause of that truth which 
we both humbly strive to advance, to consult for myself the original au~ 
thorities and various exegetical subsidies that were alike accessible to us 


x PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


both, that so my adhesion to the opinions of my able predecessor, or my de- 
parture from them, might be the result of my own deliberate investigations. 
At the same time I have been particularly benefited by the admirable per- 
spicuity of his notes, and have felt rejoiced when our opinions coincide, and 
unfeignedly sorry when I have deemed myself compelled to take a contrary 
or antagonistic side. 

To the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer, but especially to those of 
the latter, I am, as heretofore, greatly indebted for grammatical and exe- 
getical details, but in the dogmatical portions I have neither sought for nor 
derived any assistance whatever. To German commentaries the faithful and 
candid expositor of Scripture is under great obligations, but for theology, he 
must turn to the great doctrinal treatises of the Divines of our own country. 

Of separate commentaries on the Philippians, the learned and laborious 
production of Van Hengel has been on many occasions extremely useful from 
its affluence of grammatical examples; but it is rather deficient in that brev- 
ity and perspicuity of critical discussion which is nowhere more indispensable 
than in the aggregation of parallel passages, and the comparison of supposed, 
but perhaps illusory, similarities of structure. 

The commentary of Wiesinger is thoughtful and sensible, and not unfre- 
quently distinguished by a sound and persuasive exegesis. Those of Rilliet 
and Hoélemann, but especially the former, deserve consideration, but have 
been still so far superseded by more modern expositions, that it will in all cases 
be advisable for the student to read them with some degree of caution and 
suspended judgment. 

Of commentaries on the Colossians, I must first specify the learned and 


exhaustive work of Bishop Davenant, which has certainly not received that. 


attention from modern expositors which it so fully deserves. Its usefulness 
is somewhat interfered with by the scholastic form in which the notes are 
drawn up, nor is it free from the tinge of theological prejudice ; but there is a 
thoroughness and completeness of exegetical investigation, which render it an 
exposition which no student of this profound Epistle will be wise to overlook. 

Of modern commentaries, that of Huther will well repay the trouble of 
perusal, but both this work and that of Bahr have been so thoroughly exam- 
ined by De Wette and Meyer, and in many passages so assimilated and in- 
corporated, that a separate study of them is rendered somewhat less neces- 
sary. They will, however, always be referred to with advantage, but this 
should not be apart from a consideration of the opinions of their successors, 
and of the various rectifications which a more accurate scholarship has occa- 
sionally been found to suggest. 

The commentary of Professor Eadie has been of occasional service to me ; 
but, as in the commentary on the Ephesians, so here also I fear I am com- 


——— 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XI 


pelled in candor to say, that the grammatical comments do not always appear 
quite exact, nor are the doctrinal passages always discussed with that calm 
precision and dignified simplicity of language which these subjects seem to 
require and suggest; still most of the exegetical portion is extremely good, — 
nor will any reader rise from the study of this learned, earnest, and not un- 
frequently eloquent volume, unimproved either in head or in heart. 

Notices of the other and larger commentaries on the New Testament, or on 
St. Paul’s Epistles, to which I have been in the habit of referring, will be 
found in the prefaces to the preceding portions of this work. 

It now only remains for me to commit this volume to the reader, with the 
earnest prayer to Almighty God that he, who has so mercifully sustained me 
with health and strength during the anxieties of continued research and the 
pressure of protracted labor, may be pleased to grant that this research may 
not prove wholly fruitless, this labor not utterly in vain. 


TPIAS, MONAS, *EAEHSON. 


CAMBRIDGE, OCTOBER 20, 1857. 


heres peal 
ie a} 


' an 
x beet Ute 
real he 


Peri ey Tine 
Aes, 


iy bf 
‘sug s 


* t a 3 rl a 
4 eolty 
cial alga) ¥ tity: ’ i 
’ ‘ i ‘ 
Mert Hh ea 4 
C oi a 


« @ 
} 


, \ r : . “api wo il ed or i, ore ; i} 
' A - . iF 
~ 7" ‘ a p 5 4 
OOM Fete: (ER! Pag i ae Pmer Ih Se vf, 
Sag seer} eel man? tant ste 1" 
wile 7 (Peed ot 
i wvegey Fly tes # Ps 
ar . Ne z 
a bie ea ary! whe cnt 2 opener’ 
wf 


ee hes} 
pHindiey> 
Md < ~ . . 
Ee Sass 23d pelt | Kona a Oo) sana 


ret Hines Fly cme) bial vel 


Se a eae me es Ce ee aie oF mit 
i tte ht ener uk oiMs su0 had 


ies 





PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


TuE second edition of this portion of my labors is now at length presented 
to the reader. Like the second edition of the portion which preceded, the 
Pastoral Epistles, it has been delayed till time could be found for calmly and 
deliberately reviewing and reconsidering the whole work. 

This duty has now been performed. Every portion of the commentary 
has been read over; every interpretation has been tested; and, I might 
almost add, every citation of Scripture has been examined and verified anew. 
For this labor, which has occupied a considerable portion of the past summer, 
there is but little to show. The book remains nearly in all its details as well 
as in its larger features exactly what it was. A very few readings, and those 
unimportant, have been changed; a certain number of alterations have been 
introduced in the Revised Translation; a small number of references to 
standard sermons, which had been either overlooked or not known when the 
commentary was written, are now added; and lastly, a short introduction 
has been prefixed to each one of the three Epistles that are included in 
this volume. 

This I fear is all that I have to show for the time spent in preparing this 
edition. Yet perhaps that time has not been spent wholly in vain. It now 
enables me, with all humility, and with a thorough consciousness of my own 
imperfections and shortcomings, yet with some measures of chastened confi- 
dence, to commend to the reader the interpretations of the many great doc- 
trinal passages, — especially those bearing on the Majesty and Divinity of 
our adorable Lord, — which he will find in the first two of the portions of 
Holy Scripture contained in this volume. Those interpretations (which, let 
it be observed, are nearly in every case those of the early versions or Greek 
commentators, stated only in a little more precise and technical language) 
have been again carefully tested. The accuracies of modern scholarship 
have been anew brought to bear upon them, the finesse and ingenuity of 
modern exegesis have been freely applied to the passages which they ex- 
pound to us; and the result is that these ancient interpretations appear to 
have as strong claim upon our attention as ever, and, in an age of unlicensed 


xIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


criticism and sadly deceitful dealings with the word of God, to stand forth as 
examples of what the meek wisdom of earlier days regarded as the true and 
accurate method of expounding the message of salvation. 

If such be the result of these present labors, —if the renewed testimony 
of one humble witness may be permitted in any degree effectually to warn 
the young and the earnest from rash and unblest modes of Scriptural inter- 
pretation; if these pages may be thought in some measure to show that the 
deductions of rigorous scholarship and of catholic truth stand ever in the 
truest union, — then I shall humbly and devoutly rejoice, and bless God that 
amid many recent hinderances and distractions I have been thus enabled 


carefully to revise and calmly to reconsider a very important portion of my \ 


labors, and thus to commend it with renewed confidence to the Christian 
student. 
May the blessing of the Father of Lights rest on all readers and expound- 


ers of his inspired Word, and move us all, in these proud and dangerous ~ 


days, to yield up our high thoughts unto him who ‘ of God is made unto us 
wisdom,’ and to determine, even as an inspired apostle determined amid the 
sceptical disputants of his own times, ‘not to know anything save Jesus Christ 
and Him crucified.’ 

C. J. ELLICOTT. 


EXETER, SEPTEMBER, 186]. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Taurs fervent, affectionate, and, in parts, pathetic Epistle was written by 
the apostle to his iberal and warmhearted converts in the Roman colony of 
Philippi, towards the close of his first captivity at Rome (see Introd. to 1 Tim.), 
and at a time when, it would seem, his imprisonment was of a closer and 
harsher character, and his earthly prospects, though not by any means without 
hope (ch. i. 25, 26; ii. 24), yet, in many respects, cheerless and depressing 
(ch. i. 20 sq., ii. 17, 28). Ji has thus been supposed, with some probability, 
to have been written after the death of the Pretorian Prefect (Burrus) to 
whom the apostle had been at first entrusted (Acts xxviii. 16), and by whom, 
as we may infer from Acts /.c., he had been treated with leniency and con- 
sideration. 

As the death of Burrus took place in a. p. 62 (Clinton, Fasti Rom. Vol. t. 
p- 44), and as there are some expressions in the Epistle that seem distinctly 
to imply that the captivity had been of some duration (ch. i. 13 sq., comp. 
li. 26), we may fix the date of the Epistle towards the close of, or more prob- 
ably about the middle of, A.D. 63, and may thus place it as the last in order of 
the four Epistles written during the first captivity at Rome : see Davidson, 
Introd. Vol. 11. p. 373. 

The circumstances that gave rise to the Epistle appear to have been 
simply the fact of Epaphroditus having come from the Church of Philippi 
with contributions ‘to alleviate the necessities of the captive apostle, — con- 
tributions which, as we learn from the Epistle itself (ch. iv. 15, 16 ; compare 
2 Cor. xi. 9), this liberal Church had promptly sent on other and earlier 
occasions. Moved by this fresh proof of love evinced by his dearly-beloved 


Philippians, — his ‘ joy and crown’ as he affectionately terms them (ch. iv. 1), 


XvI INTRODUCTION. 


the apostle avails himself of the return of Epaphroditus, who now, after a 
dangerous illness (ch. ii. 27), was on his way back to Philippi, to send to that 
Church and its chief officers (ch. i. 1; see notes in loc.) by the hand of their 
own messenger, his warm and affectionate thanks, mingled with personal 
notices relative to his own state, earnest commendations, pointed but kindly 
warnings, and varied expressions of consolation and encouragement. No 
Epistle written by the inspired apostle is pervaded with a loftier tone of 
cheering exhortation (see notes on ch..jii. 1); none in which the pressing 
forward for ‘the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus’ is set 
forth in language of greater animation; none in which imitation of his own 


love of his Master is urged upon his converts in strains of holier incen- 


\\ tive (compare ch. ili. 17-21). The supposition that there were: definite 


N 


parties and factions in the Church of Philippi, and that the Epistle was 
designed to expose their errors, and especially those of the Judaists, does not 
seem tenable. It is clear that Judaizing teachers had intruded into the 
Church of Philippi (ch. iii. 2), but it seems also clear that their teaching had 
at present met with but little reception. 

The genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle are very convincingly 
demonstrated by external testimony (Polycarp, ad Philipp. cap. 3, Ireneus, 
Her. tv. 34, ed. Grabe, Clem.-Alex. Pedag. 1. p. 129, ed. Pott., Tertull. de 
Resurr. Carn. cap. 23), and even more so by the individuality of tone and 
language. Doubts have been urged by a few modern writers, but they have 
been justly pronounced by all competent critics as wholly unworthy of atten- 
tion. The same may be said of the doubts as to the unity of the Epistle: see 
Davidson, Inirod. Vol. 11. p. 387 sq. . 


THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


CHA PAT BR. ol. 


Apostolic address and salu- 
tation. 


1. kal TiwdSeos] Timothy is here 
associated with the apostle (as in 2 Cor. 
‘i: 1, Col. i. 1, 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1), being 
known to, and probably esteemed by, the 


Philippians (Grot.), whom he had al- 


ready twice visited; once in company 
with St. Paul (Acts xvi. 1, 12), and once 
alone (Acts xix. 22). The asscciation 
seems similar to that with Sosthenes, 1 
Cor. i. 1; Timothy being neither the 
joint author of the Epistle (Menoch.), 
nor the ‘comprobator’ of its contents 
(Zanch.; comp. notes on Gal. i. 2), nor 
again the mere transcriber of it (comp. 
Rom. xvi. 22), but simply the ‘socius 
salutationis,’ Est. Two verses lower the 
“apostle proceeds in his own person, and 
in ch. ii. 19, when Timothy reappears, it 
is simply in the third person. It 
may be remarked that it is only in this 
Ep., 1 and 2 Thess., and, as we might 
expect, Philem., that St. Paul omits his 
official designation, améorodos xk. T. A. 
(Gal. i. 1), or aaréor. "Ino. Xp. (remain- 
ing Epp.). This seems due, not to ‘ mo- 
destia’ in the choice of a title common 
to himself and Tim. (Grot.), for see 2 
Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, but simply to the 
terms of affection and familiarity on 
which he stood with the churches both 
of Thessalonica (ch. ii. 19, 20, iii. 6- 


AYAOZ kai TypoSeos Sotrot Xpuorod 


’ fa! an Lal (3 t > aA 
Incobd, Tmaow Tots aytous ev Xpicta 
( c 


10) and Philippi: he was their apostle, 
and he knew from their acts (Phil. iv. 14 
sq.) and their wishes (1 Thess. iii. 6) 
that they regarded him as such. On the 
modes of salutation adopted by St. Paul, 
see Riickert on Gal. i. 1, and compare 
notes on Eph. i. 1, and on Col. i. 1. 

SodAo0t X. “1.] ‘ bond-servants of Jesus 
Christ ;’ ‘servi proprie erant qui toti ob- 
stricti erant Domino in perpetuum,’ 
Zaneh. ap. Pol. Syn.; so Rom. i. 1; 
compare Gal. i. 10, and also James i. 1, 
2 Pet.i.1, Jude 1. The interpretation 
of Fritzsche (Rom. i. 1), ‘Jesu Christi 
cultor,’ scil. ‘homo Christianus,’ is tena- 
ble (compare Dan. iii. 26), but like so 
many of that commentator’s interpreta- 
tions, hopelessly frigid; comp. Gal. i. 
10, where to translate Xp. SodAos odk by 
Hunv, ‘non essem homo Christianus,’ is 
to impair all the vigor of the passage. 
The term is used in its ethical, rather 
than mere historical sense, ‘an apostle,’ 
ete. (see Meyer on Gal. /. c.), and the 
genitive is strongly possessive: they be- 
longed to Christ as to a master, comp. 
1 Cor. vii. 22: His they were; yea, His 
very marks they bore on their bodies ; 
compare Gal. vi. 17, and see notes in /oc. 
The formula dodA0s God (comp. “Say 
mins Ps. cxiii. 1, al.) is naturally more 


18 PHILIPPLANS: 


Cuap, I. 1. 


Ti nr a iD z | @ ri \ ? / \ 5 , 
HoOU TOLS OVOLW EV tAITTTTOLS GUY ETT LOKOTTOLS KAL OLAKOVOLS. 


general ; SodAos Xpicrod, somewhat more 
personal and special: compare notes on 
1g. a. 1. 
&ylots n.7.A.| ‘to all the saints,’ etc., 
‘to all that form part of the visible and 
spiritual community at Philippi ;’ 
being used in these salutations in its 
most inclusive sense: see notes on Eph. 
i. 1. ‘Though dys in these sorts of ad- 
dresses does not necessarily imply any 
special degree of moral perfection, being 
applied by the apostle to all his converts, 
except the Gal. (and apparently Thess., 
- &ylos in ch. v. 27 being very doubtful), 
yet still the remark of Olsh. (on Mom. i. 
7) is probably true, that it always hints 
at the idea of a higher moral life impart- 


TAaTLVY TOLS 


e 
aytoe 


ed by Christ. This in the present case. 


is made still more apparent by the addi- 
tion év XpiorG : it was ‘ in Him’ (not for 
did, Est , Rheinw.), in union with Him, 
and Him alone, that the ayidrns was 
true and real; of yap év Xp. Ino. &yior 
’ytws eicly, Theophyl.: compare Koch 
on Thessalon. i. 1, p. 59. The inclusive 
macw, repeated several times in this Ep., 
ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 25, ii. 17, 26, iv. 23 (Ree.), 
well expresses the warmth and expan- 
siveness of the apostle’s love. 
:Atmmots| Philippi, now Filibah or 
Filibejih, and anciently Kpfvides (not 
Adros, Van Heng. after Appian, Bell. 
Civ. rv. 106, which was the ancient name 
of the port, Neapolis), was raised to a 
position of importance by Philip of Ma- 
cedon about B.c. 358, and called after 
his name. In later times it was memo- 
rable as overlooking the scene of the bat- 
tle between Antony and Octavius against 
‘Brutus and Cassius, when the cause of 
the republic was finally lost (Merivale, 
Hist. Vol. 111. p. 208): soon afterwards 
it became a Roman colony (Colon. Au- 
gust. Julia Philippensis) and received 
the «Jus Italicum.’ It was, however, 
still more memorable as being the first 


city in our continent of Europe in which 
the gospel was preached, Acts xvi. 9. A 
few ruins are said still to remain; see 
Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. Vol. 111. p. 1070, 
and the article by the same author in 
Pauly, Encyl. Vol. v. p. 1477 ; compare 
also Leake, NV. Greece, Vol. 111. p. 216. 
ovy émiok. kat Stak. ‘together with 
the bishops and deacons ;’ not merely ‘ in 
company with’ (werd), but ‘ together 
with’ (‘una cum,’ Beza), — specially in- 
cluded in the same friendly greeting; 
compare notes on Eph. vi. 23. Various 
reasons have been assigned why special 
mention is made of these church-officers. 
The two most plausible seem, (a) be- 
cause there were tendencies to division 
and disunion even among the Philippi- 
ans, which rendered a notice of formally 
constituted church-officers not unsuitable 
(Wiesinger, al.) ; (b) because the émlor. 
and did«. had naturally been the princi- 
pal instruments in collecting the alms 
(Chrys., Theoph., and recently Meyer, 
Bisping). The latter seems most prob- 
able; at any rate the date of the Epistle 
is not enough to account for the addition 
(Alf.), nor does the position of the clause 
warrant any contrast with ‘ the hierarchi- 
eal views’ (ib.) of the Apost. Ff. (now 
by no means critically certain); for com- 
pare Ignatius (?) Philad. 1 : —the shep- 
herds naturally follow the sheep. On 
the meaning of the title of office, émtoxo- 
mos, here appy. perfectly interchangeable 
with the title of age and dignity, mpec8u- 
repos (Acts xx. 17, 28, 1 Pet. v. 1), see 
especially notes on 1 Tim. iii. 1; and on 
Side. see notes on 2b. iii. 8. The reading 
of B°D’; 39, 67, cvvemioxdmois, retained 
and noticed by Chrys., seems meaning- 


‘less and indefensible, and arose probably 


from the epistolary style of later times ; 
comp. Chrys. in loc. 

2. xdpts duty x.7.A.] On the spir- 
itual significance of this blended form of 


Cuap. I. 2-3. 


D | A ec a \ > , b) \ (9) a \ id fal 
Xapls VELL KQt €Lp7)V ATO €OU TTATPOS 1){LWV 


Xptotov. 
I thank my God with con- 
stant prayers for your pres- 


more, 


Occidental and Oriental salutation, see 
notes on Gal. i. 2, and on Ephes. i. 2 ; 
comp. also Koch on 1 Thess. p. 60. The 
formula is substantially the same in all 
St. Paul’s Epistles, except in Col. i. 2, 
and 1 Thess. i. 1, where the reading is 
doubtful. In the former, kat Kup. "Ine 
Xp. seems certainly an insertion, and in 
the latter (the apostle’s earliest Epistle) 
it may be doubted whether the simple 
xdpis kab eiphyn, without any further ad- 
dition, may not be the more probable 
reading ; see, however, Tisch. in loc. 
kat Kuptou| Scil. cat amd Kupiov x.7.A. 
The Socinian interpr. rad (marpds) Ku- 
ptov, found also in Erasm. on Lom. i. 7, 
is rendered highly improbable by the use 
of the same formula without judy, 2'Tim. 
i. 2, Tit. i. 4, most probably 1 Tim. i. 2, 
and perhaps 2 Thess. i. 2: compare 1 
Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. ii. 16. 

3. evxaptoT® x. 7.A.| A closely 
similar form of commencement occurs in 
Rom. i. 9, 1 Cor. i. 4, Philem. 4; com- 
parg also Eph. i. 16, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. 
i. 2. Indeed in all his Epp. to churches, 
with the single and sad exception of that 
to the Galat., the apostle either returns 
thanks to God, or blesses Him, for the 
spiritual state of his converts ; rovro d¢ 
moet ex TOV TOAAA adTors ouverdévar ay- 
a%d, Chrys. The present use of edyapic- 
tev (‘quod pro gratias agere ante Poly- 
bium’ usurpavit nemo,’ Lobeck) is con- 
demned by the Atticists; see Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 18, Thom. M. p. 913 (ed. 
Bern.), Herodian, p. 400 (ed. Koch), 
but consider Demosth. de Cor. p. 257. 
Pollux (Onom, v. 141) admits it for 5:54- 
vat xdpw, but condemns it for eidévar xd- 
pw; see, however, Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. 
Vol. 1. p. 52, and notes on Col. i. 12. 


PHLELIPELANS. 


3 P} > lal nr lal 
Evyapictd 7 Oe@ pov 
ent fellowship in the gospel, and my love makes me confident for the future. 


19 


kat Kupiov ’Incod 


Racy - al fA 
€7Tb TAa0n T) VEL 
May ye abound yet more and 


T@ Oe@ wov| So Rom.i.8; compare 
Acts xxvii. 23, 08 eiwl 6 nal AaTpevw. 
‘ Significat Paulus quanti fiducid vero 
Deo adhereat. Sunt enim qui sentiunt 
Deum misericordem quidem esse per 
Christum Sanctis hominibus nescio qui- 
bus, non autem sentiunt Deum ipsis esse 
misericordem,’ Calv. 

éwl radon TH pvelal ‘onthe whole of 
my remembrance of you,’ not ‘every re- 
membrance,’ Auth. (but not the older 
English Vy.), Bloomf., Conyb., and oth- 
ers, — a translation incompatible with the 
use of the art.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 
4,p.101. The prep. ém with the dative 
(which we can hardly say ‘answers to 
the same prep. with a gen.; Rom. i. 10, 
Eph. i. 16,’ Alf.) is not here temporal 
(Heb. ix. 26), édcdkis tuav avayyvnodsda, 
Chrys., Winer, Gir. p. 350, —a meaning 
favored by the incorrect interpr. of aan 
7 pv., but semilocal, and correctly ex- 
presses the idea of close and complete con- 
nection, ‘my giving thanks is based upon 
my remembrance of you,’ ‘ remembrance 
and gratitude are bound up together’ 
(comp. Isaiah xxvi. 8), the primary idea 
being, not addition (Alf.), but superposi- 
tion, Donalds. Cratyl. § 172, Gram. § 
483 : see notes on ch. iii. 9, and on Eph. 
ii. 20, where (ed. 1) interchange the ac- 
cidentally transposed ‘ former’ and ‘ lat- 
ter.” In Rom. i. 10, and Eph. i. 16 (see 
notes), where ém is used with the gen. 
in a very similar sentence, a certain 
amount of temporal force seems fairly 
recognizable. The causal meaning, ‘ de 
eo quod vos mei recordamini,’ Homberg, 
Michael., al. (comp. 1 Cor. i. 4), accord- 
ing to which duéy is a gen. subjecti, is 
exegetically untenable, as ver. 5 gives 
the reason for the edxap., and specifies 


20 


PHILIPPRANS. 


Cuap. I. 4,5. 


n > \ a . 
ipov, * wdvtote vy Taon Senoet pov UTEp TavT@Y tpaY wETa 


xapas tiv Seno TOLOvpEVOS, 


something which far more naturally clic- 
ited it. pwvela bay] ‘re- 
membrance of you,’ 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. 
i. 3; not ‘commemorationem vestri ’ 
(Van Hengel),—a meaning which, as 
Meyer rightly observes, it only receives 
when associated with roretodat; compare 
Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1 Thess. i. 2, Phi- 
lem. 4. 

4. rdvtote—motovmevos| Parti- 
cipial sentence defining and explaining 
more fully when the evxapict@ k. T. 2. 
takes place, viz., on every occasion that 
he prayed for them: the evxapioria was 
based on, and inseparable from the pvela, 
and this thankful remembrance ever 
found an utterance in every prayer. 
Mdytore is clearly not to be joined with 
evxapicT@ (Wiesing.),—a construction 
which interferes with the studied and 
affectionate cumulation mdvtore, don, 
mdyvrwy (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8) in the parti- 
cipial clause ; compare Col. i. 3, where it 
also seems best (contr. Meyer, De W. ; 
see notes) to join the adverb with the 
participle. It may be remarked that no 
inference can be drawn from the position 
of mdvtore (x favorite word with the 
apostle), it being as often used by him 
after as before the verb with which it is 
connected: in the other writers of the 
N. T. (except John viii. 29, where it is 
emphatic) it precedes the verb. On the 
emphatic repetition, mdytote, mdon, mav- 
Twy, see the copious list of examples in 
Lobeck, Paralip. p. 51 sq. 
bmép tmavtrwv buadv| These words 
may be connected either (a) with tiv 
Senow morovmevos, Calv., De Wette, Alf., 
al., or (b) with deqoe: wov, Auth. and all 
Engl. Vv., Meyer, al. Both are gram- 
matically tenable; the omission of the 
article before dtp ravrwr being perfectly 
justifiable in the first case (see notes on 
Eph. i. 15), and according to rule in the 


Bb. 5 lol Uy e a > A 
€7lb T1) KOLVMVLE ULWVY ELS TO 


second ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126. 
The latter, however, seems much more 
simple and natural; the wdyvrote is de- 
fined by mdon Seqoe, and mdon 5. again 
is limited by brép Suey, while the article 
attached to Sénaw (Alf. seems here to 
argue against himself; compare with 
Meyer) refers it back to the déyors thus 
previously limited: so most of the an- 
cient Vv., Syr., Clarom., Vulg., Coptic. 
The construction adopted by Est., al., 
evxap.— tmép mdavr. du., though else- 
where adopted by St. Paul (Eph. i. 16, 
comp. Rom. i. 8, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. 
i. 3), seems here very unsatisfactory. On 
the meaning of déyo1s (a special form of 
mpooevx7), see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. 
feta xXapas| These words serve to 
depict the feelings he bore to his children 
in the faith at Philippi; he prays for 
them alway, yea, and he prays with joy ; 
dinven@s tuav meuvnuevos Suundlas Gard- 
ons éumiumrauot, Theodoret. 

5. é€m) tH Kotvwvig| ‘for your fe- 
lowship ;’ ém correctly marking the cause 
for which the apostle returned thanks, 1 
Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 15; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 48. c, p. 351. This clause is most 
naturally connected with ebxap. (Beng., 
al., and apparently Greek commentt.), 
not with ri déno. moovp. (Van Heng., 
De W.; compare Green, Gr. p. 292), 
as there would otherwise be no specific 
statement of what was the subject of the 
apostle’s ebxapioria. De Wette urges 
as an objection the use of evxap. ém) in 
two different senses, in ver. 3 and 5, but 
this may be diluted by observing that the 
first ém) is not (as with De W.) temporal, 
but semilocal (ethico-local), defining the 
subject on which the thanks rest, and 
with which they are closely united, the 
difference between which and the present 
simply ethical use is but slight. Thus 
then ver. 3 marks the object on which the 


Cuap. I. 5, 6. 


PEELE eLAIN SS’: 


21 


> f- ’ \ , e tL ” fal A 6 \ ; a 
evayyedLov amd TPwTNS iMEpas axpL TOD viv, ° TeTOSwS aUTA 


edxap. rests, ver. 4 defines when it takes 
place, ver. 5 why it takes place. Such 
slightly varied and delicate uses of prep- 
ositions are certainly not strange to the 
style of St. Paul. 

Kotvwvia cis To evaryy.| ‘fellowship 
toward the gospel ;’ not ‘in the gospel,’ 
Syr., Vulg. (but not Clarom.), but ‘ in 
reference to,’ or perhaps more strictly 
‘toward’ (Hamm.), the eis marking the 
object toward which the xowwvia was 
directed (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353), — 
the fellowship of faith and love which 
they evinced toward the gospel primarily 
and generally in their concordant action 
in the furtherance of it, and secondurily 
and specially in their contribution and 
assistance to St. Paul. So in effect 
Chrysostom, upa 7d cvvaytT:AquBdveodsat 
xowwvla éot) els TO evayyeAtov, except 
that he too much limits the cuvayriAapB. 
to the particular assistance rendered to 
the apostle (so Theophyl., Bisping.), 
which rather appears involved in, than 
directly conveyed by, the expression. 
On the other hand, the absence of the 
article before eis 7d evayy., which con- 
fessedly involves the close connection of 
ko. and eis Td evayy- (Winer, Gr. § 20. 
2, p. 123, comp. ch. iv. 15), coupled with 
the exegetical consideration, that in an 
epistle which elsewhere so especially 
commemorates the liberality of the Phi- 
lippians (ch. iv. 10, 15, 16), such an al- 
lusion at the outset would be both natu- 
ral and probable (comp. De W.), renders 
it difficult with Mey. and Alf. to restrict 
kowvwvia merely to ‘unanimous action’ 
(Alf.), ‘bon accord’ (Rilliet), and not 
to include that particular manifestation 
of it which so especially marked the lib- 
eral and warm-hearted Christians of Phi- 
lippi; compare Wiesing. in Joc., and Ne- 
ander, Phil. p. 25. Kowwvia is thus ab- 
solute (Acts ii.42, Gal. ii. 9) and ab- 
stract, — ‘fellowship,’ not ‘ contribution’ 


(Bisp.), a translation which is defensible 
(see Fritz. on Rom. xv. 26, Vol. 111. p. 
287), but which would mar the studiedly 
general character of the expression. The 
interpretation of Theod. (not Chrysost.), 
al., according to which els 7d evayy. is a 
periphrasis for a gen. (kowwvtay 5& Tod 
evayy. Thy mioTWw ekdAece), is grammat- 
ically untenable ; compare Winer, Gr. § 
30. 5, p. 174. 
nuéepas| ‘from the first day,’ in which 
it was preached among them (a¢’ ob 
émotevoate, Theophyl.), Acts xvi. 13 
sq., comp. Col. i. 6. This clause, which 
seems so obviously in close union with 
the preceding words, is connected by 
Lachm. (ed. stereot., but altered in larger 
ed.) and Meyer with memoiSas k. 7. A., On 
account of the absence of the article. 
This is hypercriticism, if not error ; amd 
mpoTns k.T.A. is a subordinate temporal 
definition so closely joined with the xo:- 
vevia, as both naturally and logically to 
dispense with the article. The insertion 
of the article would give the fact of the 
duration of the rowwvia a far greater 
prominence than the apostle seems to 
have intended, and would in fact suggest 
two moments of thought, — ‘ communio- 
nem eamque a prima die,’ ete. ; comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, and notes on 1 Tim. 
i..13. Even independently of these 
grammatical objections, the use of 7é- 
moiwsa, Which De Wette and Van Heng. 
remark is usually placed by St. Paul first 
in the sentence (ch, ii. 24, Rom. ii. 19, 2 
Cor. ii. 3, Gal. v. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 4), 
would certainly seem to suggest for the 
participle a more prominent position in 
the sentence. The connection with ¢i- 
xdp. (cum., Beza, Beng.) seems equal- 
ly untenable and unsatisfactory ; such a 
temporal limitation could not suitably be 
so distant from its finite verb, nor would 
amd mpérns x.7.A. be in harmony with 
the pres. edxap., or the prior temporal 


ands TpPeTNS 


22 


jG GG hel bg i) coh eo eo 


Cuap. I. 6, 


an 4 P93 tad / 3 ig lal ” >’ \ b] /, v 
TOUTO, OTL O EvapSapmevos ev Umiy Epyov ayasov émitehéce axpis 


clause mdytote x.7.A.; compare De 
Wette. 

6. TeTotsws avTd TodrTo| ‘being 
confident of this very thing, viz., that He 
who,’ ete., comp. Col. iv. 8; not ‘ confi- 
dent as Iam,’ Alford (comp. Peile), but 
with the faint causal force so often couch- 
ed in the participle, ‘seeing I am, ete. ;’ 
‘heec fiducia nervus est gratiarum actio- 
nis,’ Beng. This clause is thus, gram- 
matically considered, the causal member 
of the sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 615) ap- 
pended to evxapioT@ k.T.A., standing in 
parallelism to the temporal member, 
mdvToTe —Tmolovmevos K.T.A., and cer- 
tainly requires no supplementary rai 
(Tynd., Flatt, al.), nor any assumption 
of an asyndeton (Van Heng.). The 
accus. avrd Tovro is not governed by we- 
moisés (Raphel, Wolf), but is appended 
to it as specially marking the ‘content 
and compass of the action’ (Madvig, 
Synt. § 27. a), or, more exactly, ‘the 
object in reference to which the action 
extends’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4. 1 
sq.), which again is more fully defined 
by the following 67: «.7. A. ; comp. Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 23. 5, p. 145, where several 
examples of this construction are cited, 
It is mainly confined to St. Jolin and St. 
Paul, and serves to direct the attention 
somewhat specially to what follows ; 
compare Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 
461. 6 évapidmevos| 
‘ He who hath begun;’ obviously God: 
see ch. li. 13, and comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, 
bpkouot kat emiteAeow ; not ‘each better 
one of the Philippians’ (Wakef. Sy/v. 
Crit. Vol. 11. p. 98), — an interpretation 
to which the following épyov ayadov (see 
below) need in no way compelus. The 
verb évdpx. occurs again in connection 
with émireA. in Gal. ili. 3, and 2 Cor. viii. 
6 (Zachm., but only with B). The com- 
pound verb does not appear to mark the 
‘vim divinam hominum in animis agen- 


tem,’ Van Heng. (for see Gal. /.¢., and 
comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 1. 3, 5), but per- 
haps only differs from &pxeoSat in this, 
that it represents the action of the verb 
as more directly concentrated on the ob- 
ject, whether (as here) expressed, or un- 
derstood; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 
ev, E, Vol. 1. p. 912. 
év bmiv| ‘in you,’ sc. ‘in animis ves- 
tris,’ compare 1 Cor. xii.6; not ‘ among 
you,’ Hamm., which would scarcely be 
in harmony with rep raytav iuav, ver. 
7. The commencement of the good work 
was not limited to instances among the 
Philippian Christians, but was spoken 
generally in reference to all. 
épyov ayaasdv| ‘a good work,’—not 
‘the good work,’ Luth.: not elsewhere 
used in ref. to God (yet comp. John x. 
32), but only in ref. to man; compare 
ANCES, 1x. 36, ROM I. 7, 2 Cor. axes. 
Eph. ii. 10, Col. i. 10, Heb. xiii. 21, al. 
Still there is no impropriety in the pres- 
ent use; the épyoyv ayasdv, though here 
stated indefinitely, does not appear to re- 
fer subjectively to the good works (Syr. ; 
Ta Katopseuata, Chrys.), the épyoyv tis 
miorews (1 Thess. i.3) of the Philippians 
generally (Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Vol. 11. 
p- 172), but rather objectively to the par- 
ticular rowwvia eis ebayy. previously spe- 
cified : God had vouchsafed unto them, 
among other blessings, that of an open 
hand and heart (tadrny tuiv Swpnodue- 
vos Thy mposuutay, Theod.) ; this blessing 
He will continue. This declaration, 
however, is expressed in a general form ; 
comp. Rom, ii. 7. 
émiteAéeaet| ‘ will accomplish,’ ‘will 
perfect,’ not merely ‘will perform it,’ Au- 
thor., but ‘will bring it to a complete 
v 
and perfect end,’ Syr. soad [exple- 
bit] ; see notes on Gal. iii. 3. With re- 


gard to the dogmatical application of the 
words, which, owing to their probable 


(Gmap.iI. 7. 


PH PLE ELAN Ss. 


23 


¢ lA xX A ak Cole 7/ S W > 8L. b] ‘ rf a 
nMEpaAS ~SploTOU LNOOU KAS@S EOTLY OLKALOV EOL TOUTO poveiy 


specific reference cannot safely be pressed, 
it seems enough to say with Theoph., 
amd TGV TapeASéyTwY Kal wep) TOY pevdv- 
tay oroxdcera: the inference is justly 
drawn, that God who has thus far blessed 
them with His grace will also bless them 
with the gift of perseverance ; compare 
1 Cor. i. 8: ‘Gottes Art ist es ja nicht, 
etwas halb zu thun,’ Neander. The 
charge of semi-Pelagianism brought 
against Chrysostom in loc. has been sat- 
isfactorily disproved by Justiniani, who 
thus perspicuously sums up that great 
commentator’s doctrinal statements ; 
‘yult Chrysostomus Deum et incipere et 
perficere : illud excitantis, hoc adjuvan- 
tis est gratie ; illa liberi arbitrii conatum 
preevertit, heec comitatur.’ On the doc- 
trine of Perseverance generally, see the 
elear statements of Ebrard, Christliche 
Dogmatik, § 518, 514, Vol. 11. p. 534- 
549. The conclusions arrived at are 
thus stated: ‘ Perseverantia est effectus 
sanctificationis. Sanctificatio est condi- 
tio perseverantiz. Datur apostasia re- 
genitorum, nempe si in sanctificatione 
inertes sunt,’ p. 548 ; compare also some 
admirable comments of Jackson, Creed, 
x. 37.4 sq. uxXpts Huéepas 
Xp. “Ino.] ‘unto, or up to the day of 
Christ Jesus, i.e. &xpt THs Tapovoias Tod 
Kuptov, Theoph. That St. Paul in these 
words assumes the nearness of the com- 
ing of the Lord (Alf.) cannot be posi- 
tively asserted. It is certainly evasive 
to refer this to future generations (ro?s 
et duav, Theophyl.), but it may be fairly 
said that St. Paul is here using language 
which has not so much a mere historical, 
as a general and practical reference : the 
day of Christ, whether far off or near, is 
the decisive day to each individual ; it 
is practically coincident with the day of 
his death, and becomes, when addressed 
to the individual, an exaltation and am- 
_ plification of that term. Death, indeed, 


as has been well remarked by Bishop 
Reynolds, is dwelt upon but little in the 
N. T.; it is to the resurrection and to the 
day of Christ that the eyes of the believer 
are directed ; ‘ semper ad beatam resur- 
rectionem, tanquam ad scopum, referen- 
di sunt oculi,’ Calv. To maintain, then, 
that this is not the sense in which the 
apostle wrote the words (Alf.) seems 
here unduly and indemonstrably exclu- 
sive. See notes on 1 Tim. vi. 14, and 
compare (with caution) Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 
2.4. B,p. 326 sq. On &yps and péxpr, 
see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 

7. ead@s x.7.A.] ‘evenas:’ explan- 
atory statement of the reason why such 
a confidence is justly felt; compare 1 
Cor. i. 6, Eph. i. 6. On the nature of 
this particle, see notes on Gal. iii. 16, and 
on Eph. lc. 
‘rijht,’ ‘meet, scil. § secundum legem 
caritatis, Van Hengel; it is in accord- 
ance with the genuine nature of my love 
(1 Cor. xiii. 7) to entertain such a confi- 
dent hope : compare Acts iv. 19, Eph. vi. 
1, 2 Pet.i.13. Alford (with Meyer and 
De W.) remarks that the two classical 
constructions are Sixaoy eué TodTo pp. 
(Herod. 1. 39), and Sikaids eiue TodTO gp. 
(Plato, Legg. x. 897). The last construe- 
tion is the most idiomatic (comp. Kri- 
ger, Sprachl. § 55. 3.10), and perhaps 
the most usual in the best Greek, but 
there is nothing unclassical in the pres- 
ent usage; comp. Plato, Republ. 1. p. 
334, Slkasov téTe TovTOIs Tos Tovnpovs 
w@perciv. TovTO ppoveiy| 
‘to think this,’ Auth., Syr.; ‘hoc sen- 
tire,” Vulg.; 7. e. to entertain this confi- 
dence: ‘ ppovety hic non dicitur de animi 
affectu sed de mentis judicio,’ Beza; 
compare 1 Cor. iv. 6 (Rec.), Gal. v. 10. 
To refer rodro to the prayer in verse 4, 
‘hoe curare pro vobis,’ Wolf (compare 
Conyb.), or to the expectation in ver. 6, 
‘hoc omnibus vobis appetere, scil, omni 


d 


Sikaror| 


24 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuar; 1%: 


¢e \ , e fal \ a Vf, 2} n bd ce a ” A 
imép TaVTMV UUaV, Sia TO EXEL ME EV TH Kapdia vpds, Ev TE TOIS 


cura et precibus’ (Van Heng.), is unsat- 
isfactory, and is certainly not required 
by émép, which occurs several times in 
the N. T. (2 Cor. i. 6,8; 2 Thess. ii. 1, 
‘al.), ina sense but little different from 
mept; see Winer, Gram. § 47.1, p. 3438. 
The probable distinction, — ‘ep! solam 
mentis circumspectionem, érép simul an- 
imi propensionem significat’ (Weber, 
Demosth. p. 130), is perfectly recogniza- 
ble in the present case, but cannot be ex- 
pressed without a periphrasis, ¢. g. ‘to 
entertain this favorable opinion about 
you,’ ‘ut ita de vobis sentiam et confi- 
dam,’ Est. On the uses of trép and 
mepi, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and on @go- 
ve, see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 19, p. 61 sq. 
51a 7d Exetv K.7.A.] ‘because I have 


you in my heart,’ en! 25 


[in corde meo positi] Syr. ; not ‘because 
you have me,’ Rosenm., Conyb.: the 
apostle is throughout clearly the subject 
and agent (comp. ver. 8); the depth of 
his love warrants the fulness of his confi- 
dence. In all cases the context, not the 
mere position of the accusatives, will be 
the surest guide ; compare Jol i. 49: 
see also Winer, Gr. § 44.6,p. 294. The 
translation of Beza, ‘in animo tenere ’?= 
‘quasi. insculptum habere memoriz ’ 
(daBeorov repipépw thy pvfjunv, Theod. ; 
see especially Justin. in loc.), is opposed 
both to the similar affectionate expres- 
sions, 2 Cor. iii. 2, vii. 3, and to the pre- 
vailing use of kapdia (comp. Beck, Bibl. 
Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 89 sq., notes on ch. iv. 
7,andon1 Tim.i.5)inthe N. T. It is 
the fervent love of the apostle that is ex- 
pressed; and in this remembrance is ne- 
cessarily involved; compare Chrysost. 
in loc. Zy re Tots Sea- 
pots «.7.A.] It is doubtful whether 
these words are to be connected with the 
preceding 5: 7d exew x. 7. A. (Chrys., 
Theoph.), or with the succeeding ovykor- 


vwyovs wou kK. T.A. (Calvin, Lachmann, 
Tisch.). Neander and the majority of 
modern commentators adopt the former ; 
the latter, however, seems more simple 
and natural. The apostle had his confi- 
dence because he cherishes them in his 
heart; and he cherishes them because 
their liberality showed that whether in 
his sufferings (Secpuo%s), which they alle- 
viated, or in his exertions for the gospel 
(ti God. kat BeB.), with which they sym- 
pathized, they all were bound up with him 
in the strictest spiritual fellowship. On 
te—rkat, which here serves to unite two 
otherwise separate and distinct notions, 
slightly enhancing the latter, see Har- 
tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 98, and comp. 
notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 

év Th &moroyia K.T.A.] ‘in my de- 
fence (of) and confirmation of the gospel.’ 
These words have been somewhat per- 
versely interpreted. *AzoAoyia and Be- 
Batwors are certainly not synonymous 
(Rheinw.),— nor do they form an hen- 
diadys, sc. dod. eis BeB. (Heinr.; com- 
pare Syr. ‘defensione qu est pro veri- 
tate [confirmatione] evangelii’),— nor 
can 7H God. be dissociated from tod 
evayy. (Chrys.), both being under the 
vinculum of a common article (Green, 
Gr. p. 211), —nor, finally, does it seem 
necessary to restrict the clause to the ju- 
dicial process which resulted in the apos- 
tle’s imprisonment (Van Heng.). It 
seems more natural to give both words 
their widest reference; to understand by 
amoaoyia St. Paul’s defence of the gos- 
pel, whether before his heathen judges 
(compare 2 Tim. iv. 16) or his Jewish 
opponents (comp. Phil. i. 16, 17), and 
by BeBadoe: his confirmation and estab- 
lishment of its truth (Heb. vi. 16), — not 
by his sufferings (Chrys., Theod.), but 
by his teaching and preaching among his 
own followers and those who resorted to 
him (compare Acts xxviii. 23, 30): see 


Crap: I. 7, 8. PHILIPPIANS. 95 


deo pot al év TH amonoyia Kal BeBavwoes TOD evayyert 
eopols ov Kal ev TH a ha é 00 evayyeXlou 
cvyKOWWwVOUS ov THs YaplTos TdvTas buas ovtas. § wadptus ydp 


_ 8. pov éorly] So Rec. with ADEKL; great majority of mss.; very many Vv. 
(but Vy. in such cases can scarcely be depended on for either side) and many Ff. 
(Griesb. [but om.], Scholz.). The éorly is omitted by Tischend. and bracketed by 
Lachm. with BFG ; 17. 67**; Vulg., Claroman. ; Chrysost. (ms.), Theod.-Mops. 
(Meyer, Alf.). ‘The external evidence seems too decidedly in favor of the insertion 
to be overbalanced by the somewhat doubtful internal argument that éorly is a rem- 
iniscence of Rom. i. 9 (Mey., Alf.). It does not seem much more probable that 
the transcriber should have borne in mind a remote reference, than that the apostle 


should have twice used the same formula, 


the good note of Wieseler, Chronol.-p. 
429, 430. 
cuykotvwvovs K.T.A.] ‘seeing that 
both in my defence of and, etc., ye are all 
partakers with me of my grace ;’ ‘ut qui 
omnes mecum consortes estis gratix,’ 
Schmid ; compare Hamm., and Scholef. 
Hints, p. 104.. The preceding tpas, fur- 
ther characterized as €y te — ovyxow., is 
rhetorically repeated (see Bernhardy, 
Synt. vi. 4, p. 275 sq.) to support mdv- 
tas ; the whole clause serving to explain 
the reason for the éxew ev ty kap3ia. It 
is doubtful whether pov is to be connect- 
ed (a) with cvyrowwvods as a second gen- 
itive (Syr., Copt.), or (b) with ris xdpr- 
tos (compare Clarom., Vulg.), the pro- 
noun being placed out of its order (Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 22.7.1) to mark the reference 
of the prep. in cuyroy. As ovykow. is 
found in the N. T. both with persons (1 
Cor. ix. 23) and things (Rom. xi. 17), 
the context alone must decide; this, in 
consequence of the meaning assigned be- 
low to xdpis, seems in favor of (a) ; com- 
pare ch. ii. 30: so Hammond, De Wette. 
Tis xapttos| The reference of this 
subst. has been differently explained : 
the Greek commentators refer it more 
specifically ‘to the grace of suffering,’ 
comp. ver. 29; Rosenm., al. to the ‘ mu- 
nus apostolicum,’ scil. ‘ ye are all assist- 
ants to me in my daty,’ Storr, Peile ; 
others again to the ‘ evangelii donatio,’ 
4 


compare Van Heng. ; others to grace in 
its widest acceptation, Eph. ii. 8, Col. 
i. 6 (De W. Alf.). Of these the first is 
too restrictive, the others, especially the 
last, too vague. The article seems to 
mark the xdpis as that vouchsafed in both 
the cases previously contemplated, suf- 
ferings for (ver. 29), and exertions in 
behalf of the gospel. © The translation 
‘gaudii,’ Clarom., Vulg., Ambrst., al., is 
apparently due to the reading yapas, 
though no mss. have been adduced in 
which that variation is found. 

8. wdptus ydp K.7.A.] ‘For God 
is my witness ;’ earnest confirmation of 
the foregoing verse, more especially of 
dia. 7d Exew we ev TH kapdig buds. Chrys. 
well says, obx &s dmorovjmevos pdptupa 
Kade? Toy Oedy, GAN ek TOAATS Siadécews. 
The reading wor [DEFG; al.; Chrys.; 
Lat. Ff.] would scarcely involve any 
change of sense ; it would perhaps only 
a little more enhance the personal rela- 
tion. @s éritodsa| ‘how 
I long after you ;? comp. ch. ii. 26, Rom. 
ial lede ‘Ciess, an." 6)72 bined. 4= ~The 
force of émt in this compound does not 
mark intension (‘ vehementer desidero,’ 
Van Heng.; ‘expetam,’ Beza), but, as 
in émiduuety and similar words, the direc- 
tion of the mé8o0s ; see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 
4,-and Fritz. Rom. 1.9, Vol. 1. p. 31. 
Again, it seems quite unnecessary with 
Van Heng. to restrict the rdSos to ‘ ves- 


’ 


26 


PREERIPPR TANS. 


Cuar. I. 8, 9. 


\ 4 a n 
Lou éotiv 6 Qevs, ws eruToda TavTas buds év oTrayXvoUs Xpio- 
tod “Incod. ° Kat tovro mpoccvxoua, Wa % aydrn vpov ert 


tree consuetudinis desiderium ;’ the long- 
ing and yearning of the apostle was for 
something more than mere earthly reun- 
ion; it was for their eternal welfare and 
blessedness, and the realization, in its 
highest form, of the xdpts of which they 
were now ovyxowwvot. The context 
seems clearly to decide that és here, and 
probably also Rom. i. 9, is not ‘quod’ 
(Rosenmuller, De Wette) but ‘ quo- 
modo’ (Syr., Copt.), scil. ‘quantopere,’ 
‘quam propense,’ Corn. a Lap.; com- 
pare Chrysostom, ov duvardy cimeiy TGS 
emia. 

évy omAdyxvots X. 71.] This forcible 
expression must not be understood mere- 
ly as qualitative, — ‘ opponit Christi vis- 
cera carnali affectui,’ Calv., but as semi- 
local, ‘in the bowels of Christ,’ in the 
bowels of Him with whom the apostle’s 
very being was so united (Gal. ii. 20), 
that Christ’s heart had, as it were, be- 
come his, and beat in his bosom: comp. 
Meyer in loc., who has well maintained 
this more deep and spiritual interpreta- 
tion. "Ey thus retains its natural and 
usual force (contr. Rilliet), and the gen. 
is not the gen. auctoris or vriginis (Har- 
tung, Casus, p. 17), as apparently Chrys. 
omadyxva yap atrn [f ovyyévera 7 Kara 
Xp.] juiv xapiCera, but simply possessive. 
We can hardly term this use of omAdy- 
‘ xva (psams) completely Hebraistic, as 
a similar use is sufficiently common in 
classical Greek (see examples in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. s.v., Vol. 11. p. 1504); the 
verb omaayxviCoua, however, and the 
adjectives woAtvomAayxvos and ev¥omAay- 
xvos (when not in its medical sense, Hip- 
pocr. p. 89) seem purely so, while, on 
the contrary, the substantive evomAayx- 
yta occurs in Eurip. Rhes.192. For a list 
of Hebraisms of the New Test. judi- 
ciously classified, see Winer, Gram. § 3, 
p- 27 sq. 


9.xat rotTo mpoa.| ‘ Kthoc precor,’ 
but not ‘ propterea precor,’ as Wolf, 2: 
the xa) with its simple copulative force 
introduces the apostle’s prayer (ver. 9 — 
11) alluded to in ver. 4, while the rodro 
prepares the reader for the statement of 
its contents, ‘and this which follows is 
what I pray.’ The kai (as Meyer ob- 
serves) thus coalesces more with totro 
than mpocedxouat; not Kal ™poo. TOvTO, 
but «al todto mpoo. To connect the 
clause closely with what precedes (Ril- 
lict) destroys all the force of ver. 8. 
tva] The particle has here what has been 
called its secondary telic force (see notes 
on I’ph. i. 17); @. e. it does not directly 
indicate the purpose of the prayer, but 
blends with it also its subject and purport : 
Theodorus in loc. paraphrases it by a 
simple infin. It may be again remarked 
that this secondary and blended use (esp. 
after verbs of prayer), though not recog- 
nized by Meyer and Fritzsche, cannot be 
safely denied in the N. T.: there are 
numerous passages (setting aside the dis- 
puted use after a prophecy) in which the 
full telic force (‘in order that’) cannot 
be sustained in translation without arti- 
fice or circumlocution ; e. g. comp. Meyer 
on John xv.8. We may observe further, 
that this use of #va is not confined to the 
N. T. : it was certainly common in Hel- 
lenic Greek (see examples in Winer, Gr. 
§ 44. 8, p. 300), and in modern Greek, 
under the form va with the subj., it lapses 
(after a large class of verbs) into a mere 
periphrasis of the infinitive ; see Corpe, 
Gramm. pp. 129, 130. 
h ayarn Su@yr] ‘your love,’ not, to- 
wards the apostle (Chrys.), — which had 
been so abundantly shown as to leave a 
prayer for its increase almost unnecessa- 
ry; nor again, ‘toward God’ (Just.), 
nor even, ‘ towards one another,’ Meyer, 
Alf. (Theodorus unites the two comp. 


Cuap. I. 9. 


PHIGIPPITANS. 


27 


=_ 


na \ na / > > 7 \ 4 ’ / 
PaAXov Kal waddov Tepiacedy EV ETTLYVOTEL Kal TaN alaS)CEL, 


Wiesing.), both of which seem unneces- 
sarily restrictive. It seems rather ‘ to- 
wards all’ (comp. De Wette),—a love 
which, already shown in, and forming 
an element of, their rowwvia, ver. 4 (not 
identical with it, Alf.), the apostle prays 
may still more and more increase, not so 
much per se, as in the special elements 
of knowledge and moral perception. Ex- 
amples of the very intelligible waAdAov kat 
MaAAov will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
Il. p. 307. Tepiogevn 
év k.7.A.] ‘may abound in knowledge 
and all (every form of ) perception,’ not 
‘in all knowledge and perception,’ Lu- 
ther, —an attraction for which there 
“seems no authority. The exact force of 
év is somewhat doubtful ; it can scarcely 
(a) approximate in meaning to perd, 
Chrys. (who, however, fluctuates between 
this preposition and eg), Corn. a Lap., 
al.; for this use, though grammatically 
defensible (comp. examples in Green, 
Gr. p. 289), is not exegetically satisfac- 
tory, as ver. 10 shows that it is not to 
aydarn together with émvyv. and aicd., but 
to émvyy. and aicS. more especially, as 
insphering and defining that love, that 
attention is directed ; nor (b) does it ex- 
actly denote the manner of the increase 
(De W.), as this again seems to give 
too little prominence to émryy. and aig. ; 
nor, lastly, is ev here instrumental, Flatt, 
Heinr., —as love could hardly be said 
to increase by the agency of knowledge. 
The prep. is thus not simply equivalent 
to werd, kata, or did (much less to eis, 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 50.5, p. 370), but 
with its usual force marks the sphere, ele- 
ments, or particulars, in which the in- 
crease was to take place ; compare Winer, 
Gr. § 48. a, p. 8345. It was not for an 
increase of their love absolutely that the 
apostle prayed, for love might become 
the sport of every impulse (comp. Wie- 
sing.), but it was for its increase in the 


important particulars, a sound knowl- 
edge of the truth and a right spiritual 
perception, and of both of which it was 
to have still more and more. Tlepioaev- 
ew is thus not absolute, but closely in 
union with éy and its dative, and may be 
considered generally and practically as 
identical with abundare and an ablative, 
the substantives defining the elements 
and items in which the increase is real- 
ized ; compare 2 Cor. viii. 7, Col. ii. 7, 
al. Lachmann, Tischendorf read repic- 
cevon With BDE; al., but as two of these 
mss., DE, adopt the aor. in ver. 26 with- 
out critical support, their reading is here 
suspicious. émiyy. Kat 
amdon aiocs.| These two substantives 
may be thus distinguished ; émiyvwous, 
“accurata cognitio’ (see notes on Eph. i. 
17), denotes a sound knowledge of theo- 
retical and practical truth (Mey.), rhv 
mpoonkovcay ywaow Tay eis apéTny ovv- 
tewdvtwv, Theodorus. Avodnots, ‘ sen- 
sus’ (Vulg., Clarom.) is more generic, 
but here, as the context implies, must 
be limited to right spzritual discernment 

o>” 
\oem [intelligentia spiri- 
tus| Syr.); a sensitively correct moral 
perception (vénois, Hesych.) of the true 
nature, good or bad, of each circum- 
stance, case, or object which experience 
may present ; compare Prov. i. 4, where 
it is in connection with évyoa, and Exod. 
xxviii. 8, where it is joined with codia. 
It only occurs here in the N. T.; the in- 
strumental derivative aisSnrnpiov (‘organ 
of feeling,’ etc.) is found Heb. v. 14; 
compare Jer. iv.19. The adjective raon 
is not tntensive (‘ plena et solida,’ Calv.), 
but, as apparently always in St. Paul’s 
Epp., extensive, ‘every form of ;’ comp. 
notes on Eph. i. 8. 

10. cis Td SoKipaery K.7.A.] ‘for 
you to prove things that are excellent ;’ pur- 
pose of the epic. év emyy. kat aiod. 


7 
( =thO9 9 


28 


PETE OANS: 


Cuap. I. 10. 


cis TO Soxypdbew vuds Ta Svapépovta, iva Are eiduKpwweis Kab 


(not result, —a meaning grammatically 
admissible, but here inapplicable; com- 
pare Winer, Gr. 44. 5, p. 294, note), to 
which the further and final purpose iva 
Te k.T. A. is appended in the next clause. 
The words dox. 7% diad., both here and 
Rom. ii. 18, may correctly receive two, if 
not three, different interpretations, vary- 
ing with the meanings given to diapé- 
povra, and the shade of meaning assigned 
to doxmacew.. Thus they may imply 
either (a) ‘to prove (distinguish between) 
things that are different,’ 1. e. to discrimi- 
nate (SocmudCew Kat Siaxpivew, Arvian, 
Epict. 1. 20),— whether simply between 
what is right and wrong (Theoph. on 
Rom. ii. 18,.De W.), or between differ- 
ent degrees of good and their contraries 
(eidévar riva wey Kadd, tiva 5& KpelrTova, 
tiva d€ mayvtdmact Ta Siapopay mpbs aA- 
Anda @xovta, Theod.); so Beza, Van 
Heng., Alf., al. ; (b) ‘ to approve of things 
that are excellent,’ ‘ut probetis potiora,’ 
Vulg., 7a Siapepovta being used in the 
same sense as in Matth. x. 31, xii. 12, 
Luke xii. 7, 24 (Meyer adds Xen. Hier. 
I. 3, 74 diap., Dio Cas$ x iv. 25), and 
doxmdCew in its derivative sense, comp. 
Rom. xiv: 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, and exam- 
ples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.; so Au- 
thor., Mey., al.; or lastly (bi) ‘to prove, 
bring to the test, things that are excellent,’ 
Syr. [ut discernatis convenientia], ®th. 
[ut perpendatis que prestat], the pri- 
mary meaning of dox. being a little more 
exactly preserved ; see Rom. xii. 2, Eph. 
vy. 10. Exegetical considerations must 
alone decide ; these seem slightly in fa- 
yor of the meaning of diapépovta (‘ pre- 
stabilia, sc. in bonis optima,’ Beng.) 
adopted in (b) and (b;),—the prayer for 
the increase of love being more naturally 
realized in proving or approving what is 
excellent, what is really worthy of love, 
than in merely discriminating between 
what is different. Between (b) and (1) 


the preceding aioSfjoerand the prevailing 
lexical meaning of Sox. decides us in fa- 
vor of the latter ; so Theophyl. (7d ovp- 
gepov Soxmdoa Kad émvyvevar Tivas pev 
Xp pircty kal tivas wy), and apparently 
Chrysostom, Beng. (‘explorare et am- 
plecti’), al., who appear correctly to hold 
to the more exact meaning of doneuacew ; 
comp. notes on Eph. v. 10. 

eiAtkptvets] ‘pure, 2 Pet. iii. 1; 
compare 1 Cor, v. 8, 2 Cor. i. 12, ii. 17. 
The derivation of this adjective, though 
a word not uncommon cither in earlier 
or later Greek, is somewhat doubtful. 
The most probable is that adopted by 
Stallbaum (Plato, Phd. 77 1), who de- 
rives it from eiAos [he must mean e%Aq], 
and «pivw, with reference to a root eiAei. 
As, however, the primary meaning of 
this root is not quite certain, efAxcp. may 
be either ‘ what is parcelled off by itself? 
(gregatim), with reference to eYAn (see 
especially Buttmann, Lewil. § 44, and 
compare Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), or 
more probably, ‘volubili agitatione se- 
cretum,’ with reference to the meaning 
volvere, which has recently been indicated 
as the primary meaning of eiAeiy ; see esp. 
Phiiol. Museum, Vol. 1. p. 405 sq. So 
appy- Hesych. eiducpivés: 7d kaSapdy Kab 
Gpryes Er€pov; see Plutarch, Quest. Rom. 
§ 26, eiAicpives Kad duryés; ib. Is. et Osir. 
§ 54, kadapds od8 ciAicpiys, and esp. 
§ 61, where 7a eiAucpiy and 7a mixta are 
opposed to each other; compare also 
Max. Tyr. Diss. 31. The more usual, 
but less prob., derivation is from efAn, 
‘splendor’ [‘EA-, cognate with SEA,’ 
Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p. £60], in 
which case the rough breathing would be 
more suitable; compare Schneider on 
Plato, Rep. 11. p. 123. Several exam- 
ples of the use of eiAup. will be found in 
Loesner, Obs. p. 350, Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
11. p. 398, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
10, of which the most pertinent are 


Cuap. I.:.11. 


PE ees Nes. 


29 


> , ’ ¢ 4 Ext la) age , ‘ Py 
QT pod KoTr ob ELS NM EPaV plLoTov, TET ANPWLEVOL KAPTOV OLKALO- 


rn fal ins n 
avvns Tov dia Inco Xpiazod, eis Oofav Kat érraivov Oeod. 


those above. ampoaKkomot| 
‘without offence, stumbling ;’ ‘ inoffenso 
eursu,’ Beza; intransitively as in Acts 
xxiv. 16, Hesych. donavddAicrov ; com- 
pare Suicer, Ziesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 495. 
Chrys. and others give an active mean- 
ing, as in 1 Cor. x. 32, ‘ giving no of- 
fence,’ ciAucp. marking their relation to 
God, ampécr. their relation to men. This 
hardly accords with the context, in which 
their inward state and relations to God 
form the sole subject of the prayer. It 
will be best, then, in spite of 1 Cor. J. c., 
to maintain the intransitive meaning ; so 
apparently Vulg., Syriac, Coptic; but 
these are cases in which the Vv. scarcely 
give a definite opinion. 

eis juépav Xp.] ‘against the day of 
Christ ;’ ‘in diem,’ Vulg., scil. va téT¢ 
edpediire kadapot, Chrys. ;—not ‘ till the 
day,’ ete., Auth. Ver. (compare Beza), 
which would rather have been expressed 
by &xpis juepas, as in ver 6. The prep- 
osition has here not its temporal, but its 
ethical force ; compare ch. ii. 16, Ephes. 
iv. 30, and notes on 2 Tim. i. 12. On 
the expressi.n jjuépa Xp. see the notes on 
ver. 6. 

ll. memAnpwmévor k.T.A.] ‘being 
filled with the fruit of righteousness ;’ mo- 
dal clause defining more fully eiAucp. rad 
ampdox., and specifying not only on the 
negative, but also on the positive side 
the fullest and completest Christian de- 
velopment. The accus. kapmdy [kaprar, 
Rec., is unsupported by uncial authority] 
is that of ‘the remoter object,’ marking 
that in which the action of the verb has 
its realization; so Col. i. 9, tAnpwSijre 
Thy émlyyoow Tod SeAhwatos ; compare 
Hartung, Casus, p. 62 sq. and notes on 
1 Tim. vi. 5, where this construction is 
discussed. If we compare Rom. xv. 14, 
TMerAnpwuevor TdonNS ywdoews, We may 
recognize the primary distinction be- 


2 


tween the cases: the gen., the ‘ whence- 
case,’ marks the absolute material out of 
which the fulness was realized (compare 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 16); the accus., 
the ‘whither-case,’ the object towards 
which and along which the action tended, 
and, as it were, in the domain of which 
the fulness was evinced; see Scheuerl., 
Synt. § 9.1, p.63. The gen. ducaortvns 
is the gen. originis, that from which the 
kapmos emanates (Hartung, Cusus, p. 63), 
or perhaps more strictly, that of the orig- 
inating cause (Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 
125),—a xapmbs that is the production of 
ducatoodvyn ; compare Gal. y. 22, Eph. v. 
9, James iii. 18, and on the meaning of 
xapmdés, notes on Gal. I. c. 

With regard to the strict meaning of d:- 
katoovvn it may be briefly remarked that 
we must in all cases be guided by the 
context : here ver. 10 and the app. empha- 
sis On kaprdy point to dix. as a moral 
habitus (comp. Chrys.), as in Rom. vi. 
18, Eph. v. 9, al.,—not ‘justification ’ 
proper (Rilliet), but the righteousness 
which results from it and is evinced in 
good works; so Caly., Meyer, De W. 
On the distinction between the ‘righteous- 
ness of sanctification ’ and the ‘ righteous- 
ness of justification,’ see especially the 
admirable sermon of Hooker, § 6, Vol. 
III. p, 611 (ed. Keble), and on the doc- 
trine of justification generally, the short 
but comprehensive treatise of Waterland, 
Works, Vol. v1. pp. 1-38. 

Tov 51a “I. X. serves to specify the 
kapmév, as being only and solely through 
Christ; compare notes on 2 Tim. i. 18. 
This fruit is a communication of the life 
of Christ to His own (Wiesing.) ; it re- 
sults from ‘the pure grace of Christ our 
Lord whereby we were in Him [by the 
working of the Spirit He sent, Gal. ii. 
20, iii. 22, Mey.] made to do those good 
works that God had appointed for us to 


20 


Know that my sufferings 
have furthered the gospel, 
for Christ is preached by 
all. I indeed would fain 
depart to Christ, but for 
your sake I shall remain. 


walk in,’ King Edw. VI. Catech., cited 
by Waterland, Justi: Vol. VI. p. 81. 
eis Sdtav kat @m. Ocod| ‘to the 
praise and glory of God:’ the praise and 
glory of God is the ‘ finis primarius’ of 
the metAnp@oda. Hence ‘ad gloriam,’ 
Beza, is more exact than ‘in gloriam,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.; see notes on Eph. i. 6. 
Adéa is here, as Meyer pertinently re- 
marks, the ‘majesty’ of God per se, 
Zrawos, the ‘ praise and glorification’ of 
the same; compare Eph. i. 6, 12, 14, 1 
Reta 

12. yevdonerv Sé x. 7.Aa.] ‘Now 
I would have you know ;’ the transitional 
dé (Hartung, Partik. 6é, 2,3, Vol. 1. p. 
165) introduces the fresh subject of the 
apostle’s present condition at Rome, his 
hopes and fears ; compare Rom. i. 13, 1 
Cor. xii. 1, 1 Thess.iv.13,al. It seems 
rather far-fetched in Meyer, followed by 
Alf., to refer yivdéor. to év émvyv. above, 
‘and as a part of this knowledge I would 
have you know,’ ete. There certainly 
seems no peculiar emphasis in yiwéorew ; 
the order is the natural one (comp. Jude 
5) when BovaAoua is unemphatic ; con- 
trast 1 Tim. ii. 8, v. 14, al. Though 
few minor points deserve more attention 
in the study of the N. T. than the collo- 
cation of words, we must still be careful 
not to overpress collocations which arise 
not so much from design as from a natu- 
ral and instinctive rhythm; compare 2 
Cor. i. 8. 
“my circumstances,’ ‘ rerum inearum con- 
ditio,’ Wolf; comp. Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 
7, Tobit x. 8, and see illustrations in 
Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234, Wetst. in 
Eph.l.c. In such cases kara is local, 
and marks, as it were, an extension 
along an object; compare Acts xxvi. 3, 
and see Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 356. In 


TH KaT ewe] 


PHILIPPIANS. 


tion. 


Cuap. I. 12, 18, 


/ Si lal uA ’ 
2 Twockew dé twas Bovrowar, adedpol, OTe 
\ ’ \ n lal 
Ta KAT Ewe LaAXov Els TPOKOTI)Y TOD Evaryyedlou 
elprusev, wate Tors Secpovs pou pavepods 


late writers, xara with a personal pro- 
noun becomes almost equivalent to a 
possessive pronoun, and with a substan- 
tive almost equivalent to a simple gen. ; 
comp. 2 Mace. xv. 37. 

BaAAOY] ‘rather;’ not ‘maxime’ or 
“excellenter’ (compare Beza), but ‘ po- 
tius,’ rather than what might have been 
expected, — viz. hinderance : see Winer, 
Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217, by whom this use of 
the comparative is well illustrated. 
mpokomny] ‘advance,’ ‘ furtherance ;” 
a substantive of later Greek condemned 
by the Atticists, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 
15, and compare Triller on Thom. M. 
s. v. p. 741 (ed. Bernh.), who, though 
perhaps justly pleading for the word as 
an intelligible and even elegant form, is 
unable to cite any instance of its use in 
any early writer, Attic or otherwise. Nu- 
merous examples, especially out of Plu- 
tarch, are cited by Wetst. in loc. 
€AhAvdSev] ‘have fallen out,’ Author. 
Ver. ; compare Wisdom xy. 5, eis dvei5os 
%pxerat. Further but doubtful exam- 
ples are cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. 
p- 499; at any rate, from them take out 
Mark v. 26, Acts xix. 27 (cited even by 
Meyer), in which éAdety certainly implies 
nothing more than simple (ethical) mo- 
Alford adduces Herodot. 1. 120, 
és Godeves Epxerat, which seems fully in 
point. 

13. dore rovs Secu. k.T-A.] ‘80 
that my bonds have become manifest in 
Christ ;’ illustrations of the above mpo- 
xowh; first beneficial result of his im- 
prisonment: ‘duos nunc sigillatim apos- 
tolus fortunz sus adversee memorat ef- 
fectus,’ Van Heng. The order of the 
words seems clearly to imply that év Xp. 
must be joined, — not with decuots, Au- 
thor. Ver., al., scil. ‘ad provehendum 


Guar. I. 13. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


ol 


, nr , ’ f- lel] / \ lal a A 
év XploT@ Yeveo Nal EV OAM TO TPalTwpl@ Kal Tois oLTTO’S TAC, 


Christi honorem,’ Calv., but with dave- 
povs , on which, perhaps, there is a slight 
emphasis ; the Secuol were not KpuTrot, 
but gavepot ; nor davepol, only, but pave- 
pol ev Xp., ‘manifesta in Christo,’ Cla- 
rom., manifest—not ‘through Christ,’ 
Theoph., Gcum., but ‘7 Christ,’ mani- 
fest as borne in fellowship with Him, and 
in His service. On this important qual- 
itative formula, which must never be 
vaguely explained away, see notes on 
Gal. ii. 17, and for a brief explanation 
of its general force, compare Hooker, 
Serm. 111. Vol. 111, p. 763 (cd. Keble). 
The variation pay. yevéod. (Chrys. adds 
tous) év Xp. with DEFG; Boern., Vulg., 
al., shows perhaps that some difculty 
has been felt in the connection. 

év 6Aw TO TpatT.] ‘inthe whole preto- 
rium. The meaning of mpatépioy in 
this passage las been abundantly dis- 
cussed. Taken per se, the adjectival sub- 
stantive ‘ pretorium’ has apparently the 
following meanings: (a) ‘the gencral’s 
tent,’ sc. ‘teutorium or tabernaculum ’ 
(Livy, vit. 12), and derivatively ‘the 
council of war’ held there (Livy xxvt. 
15); (b) the * palace of a provincial goy- 
ernor’ (Cicero, Verr. 111. 28; compare 
Matth. xxvii. 27, Mark xv. 16; al.), sc. 
‘domiciiium,’ and thence derivatively, (a) 
‘the palace of aking’? (Juv. x. 161; 
compare Acts xxiii. 35), and even (6) 
‘the mansion of a private individual’ 
(compare Suet. Octav. 72) ; lastly, (c) 
‘the body-guard of the emperor’ (Tacit. 
Tist. rv. 46) ; and thence not improba- 
bly, (d) ‘the guard-house or barracks 
where they were stationed ;’ compare 
Scheller, Lex. siv., from which this ab- 
stract has been compiled. In the pres- 
ent passage Chrys. and the patristic ex- 
positors all adopt (b, a) and refer the 
term to ‘the empcror’s palace’ (7& Baot- 
Aeia), but since the time of Perizonius 
(de Pret. et Pretorio, Franeq. 1687) 


nearly all modern commentators adopt 
(cd), and refer pair. to the ‘ castrum Pre- 
torianorum’ built and fortified by Seja- 
nus, not far from the ‘ Porta Viminalis ;’ 
compare Suet. Tiber. 37, Tacit. Ann. 1v. 
2, Dio Cass. tv1r. 19. The patristic in- 
terpretation, on account of the lax use of 
‘pretorium,’ seems fairly defensible: 
as, however there is no proof that the 
imperial palace at Rome was ever so 
called, and as it is expressly said, Acts 
Xxviii. 16, that St. Paul was delivered 
TO otpatoredagxw (one of the two Pre- 
fecti Praetorio, perhaps Burrus), and by 
him assigned to the. custody of a (Pree- 
torian) soldier, it seems more probable 
that the apostle is here referring to the 
‘castrum Preetorianorum,—not merely 
to the smaller portion of it attached to 
tue palace of Nero (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 
403, followed by Hows. [Vol. 11. p. 510, 
ed. 2], and Alf. in loc.), but as 6Aw and 
the subsequent generic To?s Aomots maou 
seem to imply, —to the whole camp of 
the Preetorians, whether inside or outside 
the city, —in which general designation 
it is not improbable that the oi«la Katca- 
pos (chap. iv. 22) may be zncluded: see 
notes in loc. The interpr. ‘ hall of judi- 
eature,’ Tamm., al. (see Wolf zn loc.), 
does not appear either satisfactory or 
tenable. The arguments 
based on this passage by Baur (der Apost. 
Pail. p. 469 sq.) against the genuine- 
ness of this Ep. must be pronounced 
very hopeless and unconvincing. 

kal tots Aotmwots| ‘and to all the 
rest,’ beside the Preetorian camp, ‘ reli- 
quis omnibus Rome versantibus,’ comp. 
Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p.317 (Bohn) : 
not ‘the rest of the Preetorians’ (Wiese- 
ler, Chronol. p. 457), a meaning too lim- 
ited ; nor, ‘ hominibus exteris (gentilibus) 
quibuscunque,’ Yan Heng., a meaning 
which of Aorro) certainly does not neces- 
sarily bear. Vulg., @th., and Author. 


82 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. I, 14, 15. 


14 gal Tods TAElovas TOY adeApav év Kupi@ memoiSotas tois Seo- 
Lois ov Treptocotépws TorApav apoBws Tov Adyov Aareiv. © Tues 


refer trois Ao.rots to locality, ‘in other 
places’ (év 7 wéAet maon, Chrys.), the 
dative being under the vinculum of ev: 
this is grammatically possible, but, as 
Aorrds is not elsewhere applied to places 
in the N. T., not very probable; comp. 
2 Cor. xiii. 2. 

14. kal robs tAelovas] ‘and that 
the greater part of the brethren:’ second 
beneficial effect of the apostle’s imprison- 
ment. The presence of the article obvi- 
ously shows that mAefovas must here re- 
tain its proper comparative force, — not 


o> 
‘many,’ Auth. Ver. Toso [multitu- 


do] Syr., but ‘ the greater portion,’ ‘ the 
more part,’ as Author. in Acts xix. 32, 
XXvii. 12, 1 Cor. ix. 19, xv. 6. So also 
2 Cor. ii. 6, iv. 15, ix. 2, where both Lu- 
ther and Auth. incorrectly retain the 
positive. évy Kup. wemoid.] 
‘having in the Lord confidence in my 
bonds ;? not ‘in regard of my bonds’ 
(Flatt, Rill.), which vitiates the construc- 
tion; the dative not being a dative ‘of 
reference to’ (comp. Gal. i. 22), but the 
usual transmissive dative. At first sight 
it might seem more simple and natural 
with Syr. to connect év Kupi@w with ddeA- 
ay, ‘ brethren united with, in fellowship 
with the Lord,’ —a construction admis- 
sible in point of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 
20. 2, p. 123), but open to the. serious 
objection that though the important mo- 
dal adjunct, év Kupiw, occurs several 
times in St. Paul’s Epistles with sub- 
stantives or quasi-substantives, e. g. Rom. 
Xvi. 8,13, Eph. iv. 1, vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, 
it isnever found with adeApds: Eph. vi. 
21, cited in opp: by Van Heng., is not 
in point; see Meyer zn loc. On the con- 
trary, merois. is found similarly joined 
with év Kup. chap. ii. 24, Galat.v. 10, 2 
Thess. iii. 4, comp. Rom. xiv. 4. The 
objection that in these and similar cases 


memoy. Stands first in the sentence (Alf.),, 
is not here of any moment ; the empha- 
sis rests on év Kupi@, and properly causes 
its precedence: surely it must have been 
‘in the Lord,’ and in Him only, that con- 
fidence could have been felt— when in 
bonds: so rightly Meyer, and very de- 
cidedly Winer, Gr. § 20. 2; p. 124. 
TEplogoTepws TOAMAaY| ‘are more 
abundantly bold,’ scil. than when I was 
not in bonds; not ‘ are very much em- 
boldened,’ Conyb., a needless dilution of 
the comparative ; ‘hac freti plus solito 
audere debemus, jam in persona fratrum 
pignus victoriz nostre habentes,’ Caly. 
The construction adopted by Grotius, 
Baumg., Crus., al., repo. apdBws, 7. e. 
apoBwrépws, is eminently unsatisfactory ; 
each verb naturally takes its own adverb. 
With apéBws Aadrcivy, comp. Acts iv. 31, 
éAddovy Tov Adyov Tod Ocod pera mappn- 
alas, a passage which may have suggest- 
ed here the insertion of the nearly certain 
gloss rod @eod, as in AB; about 20 mss. ; 
majority of Vv. (Zachm.). The varia- 
tions (see Tisch.) serve to confirm the 
shorter reading. 

15. reves mev x. 7. A] ‘Some in- 
deed even from envy and strife:’ excep- 
tions to the foregoing; ‘this is the case 
with all; some preach from bad motives.’ 
The previous definition, év Kup. remois., 
seems to render it impossible that the 
twes pev should be comprised in the 
adeApol, ver.14. The mention of ‘speak- 
ing the word’ brings to the apostle’s 
mind all who were doing so; he pauses 
then to allude to all, specifying under 
the ries wey (obs. not of wéy as in yer. 
16) his Judaizing —not his unbelieving 
(Chrys.) — opponents, while in rivés 5& 
he reverts to the sounder majority men- 
tioned in ver. 14. Kal, with its common 
contrasting force in such collocations 
(see notes on chap. iv. 12; comp. Klotz, 


Cuap. I. 15, 16. 


PRIULES IANS. 


33 


pev Kat dia PSdvov Kab Epiv, Tues dé Kat Sv evdoniay Tov Xpiorov 


Knpvocovow" 


Devar, Vol. 11. p. 636, and examples in 
Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. pp. 136, 137) 
marks that there were, alas! other mo- 
tives beside the good ones that might be 
inferred from the preceding words. Al- 
ford refers «al to tives, ‘besides those 
mentioned ver. 14.’ This, however, does 
not seem tenable. 51a 
~&dbvov] ‘on account of envy,’ or more 
idiomatically, ‘from envy,’ ‘for envy,’ 
—to gratify that evil feeling ; so Matth. 
xxvii. 18, Mark xv. 10, comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 49. ¢, p. 355, and notes on Gal. iv, 
13. Alberti adduces somewhat perti- 
nently Philemon [Major, a comic poet, 
B.C. 330] moAAd pe didacKkes apSovws 
dia PAdvov; see Meineke, Com. Fragm. 
Vol. 1v. p. 55. It is scarcely necessary 
to add that the translation ‘amid envy’ 
(Jowett on Gal. iv. 10), is quite untena- 
ble: 8:4 with an accus. in local or quasi- 
local references is purely poetical; com- 
pare Bernhardy, Synt. v. 18, p. 236. 

50 evdoKnlav| ‘onaccount of, from, good 
will,’ amd mpoSuulas amdons, Chrys.,— 
towards the apostle; not towards others 
in respect of their salvation (Est.). De 
W. objects to this meaning of eddoxia as 
not sufficiently confirmed, and adopts the 
transl. ‘ good pleasure,’ sc. of me and my 
_ affairs. This seems somewhat hypercriti- 
cal; surely the opposition 6:4 pSdvov 
coupled with é& aydrns, ver. 16, seems 
sufficient to warrant the current transla- 
tion; see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 372, 
‘whose note, however, is not in all points 
perfectly exact; comp. notes on Eph. i. 
5, and the quaint but suggestive com- 
ments of Andrewes, Serm. x111. Vol. 1. 
p- 230 (Angl.-Cath. Libr.). The kat 
refers to contrary motives just enunciat- 
ed; and the party specified under tivés 
dé, though practically coincident with the 
mAcloves, are yet, as De Wette rightly 
observes, put slightly under a different 

5 


16 e St 3 > is id0 ig by > / fa) 
ou pev €& aydrns, ElooTes OTL Els ATrOAOYiaV TOD 


point of view, and as forming the oppo- 
site party to those last mentioned. Thus 
of those who spake the word, tives pev 
were factious and envious, twes dé full 
of good will and kindly feeling, and these 
latter were they who constitute the wAei- 
ovas Tov adeAPar, ver. 14. 

16. of wev €& &ydans| ‘those in- 
deed (that are) of love (do so) ;’ sc. bvres, 
comp. Rom. ii. 8, Gal. iii. 7. The two 
classes mentioned in the last verse are 
now by of wey and of dé a little more ex- 
actly specified, the order being inverted. 
In Rec. the more natural order is pre- 
served, but is very insufficiently sup- 
ported, viz., only by one of the second 
correctors of D, K (L omits of wey é€ 
epis. to ov), other mss.; Syr.-Philox. 
and other Vv., and several Greek Ff. 
The Auth. Ver. and apparently nearly 
all the older expositors make of yey the 
subject, and refer e& aydmrns to the sup- 
plied clause, roy Xp. knp.: so also Matth., 
Alf., and other modern commentators. 
This is plausible at first sight, but on a 
nearer examination can hardly be main- 
tained. For jirst, é& aydmns would thus be 
only a kind of repetition of 614 eddoKiar, 
as also é épid. of 8:4 p3dvov; and sec- 
ondly, the force of the causal participial 
clause would be much impaired, for the 
object of the apostle is rather to specify 
the motives which caused this difference 
of behavior in the two classes than merely 
to reiterate the nature of it. See esp. 
De Wette in loc. by whom the present 
interpretation is ably maintained; so 
Meyer, Wies., and (in language perhaps 
too confident), Van Heng.: where appy. 
all the ancient versions are on the other 
side, it is not wise to be too positive. On 
the expression, of €& aydmns, ‘qui ab 
amore originem ducunt,’ see notes on 
Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Vol.. 
I. p. 105. eiddres Sri x. 7.A.] 


34 PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. 1.4% 


ebayyedtou Keiuar, “of 8& €& epiSelas Tov Xpiotov Kxatayyér- 
Aovew ody ayvas, oldpmevor Sip eyelpew Tois Seopois pov. 


‘as they know that I am appointed for the 
defence of thegospel,’ i.e. ‘set to defend 
the gospel,’ Tynd., Cran.; participial 
clause explaining the motives of the be- 
havior, compare Rom. vy. 3, Gal. ii. 6, 
Eph. vi. 8, al. They recognize in me 
the appointed defender of the gospel, — 
not the incapacitated preacher, whose 
position claims their help (Hst., Fell 2), 
but the energetic apostle whose example 
quickens and evokes their co-operation. 
Keijua has thus a purely passive refer- 
ence, not ‘jiceo in conditione misera,’ 
Van Heng. (a meaning lexically defensi- 
ble, see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. 
s. v.), but ‘constitutus sum,’ /Zth., ‘I 
am set,’ Auth., @eds we Kexelpotdvnke, 
Theodoret : so Luke, ii. 34, 1 Thess. iii. 
3. The apostle was in confinement, but 
not, as far as we can gather, either in 
misery or in suffering; compare Conyb. 
and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 515 sq. 
amovAoylay rod evayy. is referred 
by Chrys., Theoph., and C&cum. to the 
account (ras edsdvas) of his ministry, 
which the apostle would have to render 
up to God, and which tlie co-operation of 
others might render less heavy. This 
seems artificial: dmoAoyia is nowhere 
used in the N. T. in reference to God, 
and can hardly have a different meaning 
to that which it bears in v. 7; see Wie- 
seler, Chronol. p. 430 note. 

17. of 5& €& epidetas] ‘but they 
(that are) of party-feeling or dissension ;’ 
opposite class to of ée& aydmns, ver. 16. 
On the derivation and true meaning of 
épiSefa, —not exactly ‘contention,’ Au- 
thor. (comp. Vulg., Syr., Copt.), follow- 
ed by many modern commentators, but 
‘intrigue,’ ‘party-spirit’ (avudas Kard 
thy ayopav tepitdyres, Theod.), as appar- 
ently felt by Clarom. ‘dissensio,’ and 
perhaps Aith., —see notes on Gal. v. 20. 
On the most suitable translation, comp. 


notes on Transl. 

katayyéAAovoty] ‘declare,’ ‘ pro- 
’ in effect not different from kepta- 
cetv, ver. 16 (ataryyéAAeTat’ Knptooerat, 
Hesych.), but perhaps presenting a little 
more distinctly the idea of ‘promulga- 
tion,’ ‘making fully known’ (Xenoph. 
Anab. 11. 5. 11, tw thy émiBovany) ; 
comp. 1 Cor. ix. 14, Coloss. i. 28, and 
Acts xvii. 3, 23, in which latter book the 
word occurs about ten times. It is pe- 
culiar to St. Paul and St. Luke. In 
this compound the preposition appears 
to have an intensive force, as in kata- 
Aéyew, KaTaparyety k.T.A.; see Rost u. 
Palm, Lex.s.v.1v.4. Odx wyvas ‘insin- 
cerely,’ ‘with no pure intention,’ (od« 
eiAiKpw@s ovd= 8 ato Td mpayua, Chrys- 
ost.), belongs closely to karayy., and 
marks the spirit in which they performed 
the katayyeAta. On the meaning of ay- 
yds (‘in quo nihil est impuri’) see notes 
on 1 Tim. vy. 22, and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 
22, oidmevot K.T. A] 
‘thinking (thus) to raise up, etc.;’ not 
exactly parallel to «iddéres, ver. 16, but 
explanatory of otx ayvés. The verb 
oteadat seems here to convey a faint idea 
of intention, though of an intention which 
was not realized; e.g. Plato, Apol. 41 p, 
oiduevor BAarew (cited by De W.); nat 
KaAG@s ele Td oiduevor’ ov yap oUTws eké- 
Bawev, Chrysost. The reading éyelpew 
(Rec. émipéperv) is supported not only by 
the critical principle, ‘ proclivi lectioni 
prestat ardua,’ but also by the weight of 
uncial authority, ABD!FG ; so too, three 
mss., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., al., and the 
best modern editors. 

tots Seguots pov] ‘unto my bonds,’ 
dat. incommodi, Jelf, Gr. § 602. 8; en- 
deavoring to make a state already suffi- 
ciently full of trouble yet more painful 
and afflicting. There is some little doubt 
as to the exact nature of this SAhjs. Is 


claim ; 


ties Mate 


- 


Cuar. I. 18. 


PHIBIPPIANS. 


35 


18 , s ‘ \ \ , vw tA v > T 
TL yap; .whynv TavTl TpoT@, LTE mpopace elTE ann Yeud, 


it outward, 7.c. dangers from the inflamed 
hatred of Aeathen enemies (Chrysost.), or 
inward, ze. ‘trouble of spirit’ (Alford) 4 
Not the latter, which is not in harmony 
with the studiedly objective Seopots, or 
with the prevailing use of SA{js in the 
‘N. T.;—nor yet exacily as Chrys., al., 
which seems too restricted, if not artifi- 
cial, but, more probably, ill-treatment at 
the hands of Jews and Judaizing Chris- 
tians, which the false teaching of the oi 
e& épiSelas would be sure to call forth. 
Calvin very prudently observes, ‘erant 
plurime occasiones | Apostolo nocendi] 
qu sunt nobis incognite qui temporum 
circumstantias non tenemus.’ 

18. rt ydp] ‘ What then;’ ‘quid 
enim,’ Vulg., or perhaps more exactly, 
‘quid ergo;’ not ‘quid igitur,’ Beza, 
which is not commonly thus used in in- 
dependent questions. The uses of f 
yap may be approximately stated as 
three: (a) argumentative, answering very 
nearly to the Lat. ‘ quid enim,’ and while 
confirming or explaining the preceding 
sentence, often serving to imply tacitly 
that an opponent has no answer to 
make ; see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 386. 
It is thus often followed by another in- 
terrogation; compare Rom. iii. 3, Job 
xxi. 4; ()) affirmative ; answering very 
nearly to ‘profecto’ or the occasional 
‘quid ni’ of the Latins (Hand, Tursell. 
Vol. 1v. p. 186); compare Eurip. Orest. 
481, Soph. Gd. Col. 547, and see Herm. 
Viger, No. 108, and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
Vol. 1. p. 537, who however has not suf- 
ficiently discriminated between the ex- 
amples adduced; (c) rhetorical, as ap- 
parently here, answering more nearly to 
‘quid ergo’ or ‘quid ergo est’ (Hand, 
Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 456), and marking 
commonly either a startled question (com- 
pare Gd Col. 544, 552), or, as here, and 
apparently Job xviii. 4, a brisk transition 
(‘ubi quis cum alacritate quidam ad 


novam sententiam transgreditur,’ Kih- 
ner on Xenoph. Afemor. 11. 6. 2), and 
thus perhaps differing from the calmer 
zt otv. In every one of these cases, how- 
ever, the proper force of yap (‘sane pro 
rebus comparatis’) though successively 
becoming more obscure, may stiil be rec- 
ognized; here, for example, the ques- 
tion amounts to, ‘ things being then as I 
have described them, what is my state 
of feeling ¢’ See Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 247 sq. All supplements, diapéeper 
(Chrys.), jor weAee (Theoph.), pjoouer 
(Van H.), ete., are perfectly unnecessa- 
ry, if not uncritical. 

mAhv] ‘notwithstanding,’ ‘nevertheless ;’ 
this particle, probably connected with 
maéov (Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. pp. 
39, 323), not with wéAas (Hartung, Par- 
tik. Vol. 11. p. 30), has properly a com- 
parative force, especially recognizable in 
the disjunctive comparison rAjy #% (see 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 100), and its use with 
the gen. e. g. Mark xii. 32, John viii. 10. 
This might be termed its prepositional 
use. It however soon passed by an in- 
telligible gradation into an adverbial use, 
and came to imply little more than aaad, 
‘nevertheless,’ ‘abgesehen davon’ (ch. 
iii. 16. iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi, 11, Eph. v. 33), 
with which particle it is not unfrequently 
joined ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 725. 
mavT tpdme| ‘in every way,’ scil. of 
preaching the gospel, more exactly de- 
fined by etre—eire. At first sight there 
might seem some difficulty in this lenity 
of St. Paul towards false, and perhaps 
heterodox teachers, — men against whom 
he warns his converts with such empha- 
sis in ch. iii. 2. The answer seems rea- 
sonable, that St. Paul is here contem- 
plating the personal motives rather than 
alluding to the doctrines of the preach- 
ers ; nay, more, that perverted in many 
respects as this. preaching might be, 
Curist is still its subject, and to the 


36 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuapr. 1 18. 


Xpworos KatayyedNeTat, Kal vy ToUT@ yYalpw" ara Kai YapHoopas’ 


large heart of the apostle this is enough ; 
this swallows up every doubt and fear: 
‘let then the word be preached, and let 
it be heard ; be it sincerely, or be it pre- 
tensedly, so it be done, it is to him [St. 
Paul] and should be to us, matter (not 
only of contentment, but also) of rejoic- 
‘ing,’ Andrewes, Serm. rx. Vol. v. p. 
191 (A.-C. Libr.) ; see especially Nean- 
der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 318 (Bohn), and 
compare Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. 111. p. 
29: 
‘whether in pretence or in truth ;’ datives 
expressive of the manner, technically 
termed, modal datt.; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 31. 6, p. 193, and especially Jelf, Gr. 
§ 603, by whom this use of the dative is 
well illustrated ; compare also Hartung, 
Casus, p. 69. The phraseological anno- 
tators, especially Wetstein and Raphel 
(Vol. 11. p. 500), adduce numerous in- 
stances of a similar opposition between 
mpopacis and aAnsea Or TAaAndEs ; these 
are quite enough, independently of the 
context, to induce us to reject the trans- 
lation of rpopdvet, adopted by Grot., al., 
“occasione,’ 7. e., ‘be the good not in- 
tended but only occasioned by them,’ 
Hammond. On the more general mean- 
ing of the here more limited aaqSea, 
compare Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 16, 
Vol. 11. p. 169. év ToVTe| 
‘therein,’ ‘in this state of things,’ scil. 
that Christ is preached, though from dif- 
ferent reasons ; comp. Luke x. 20. This 
use of év rovrw, nearly = Germ. ‘ darii- 
ber, though apparently not very com- 
mon in the best prose, is certainly no 
Hebraism (Rilliet); see Winer, Gram. 
§ 48. a, p. 346. Meyer compares Plato, 
Republ. x. p. 603 c, év robras maow } 
Avmoumévous } xalpovrus. 

G@AAG Kal xap.} ‘yea, and I shall re- 
joice :’ not exactly, de) itp TovTwy xa- 
phooua, Chrys., Calv., but, in more strict 
connection with the following fut., when 


elre tpopaaet k.T.A.] 


the aroB. cis owr.is being realized. The 
punctuation is here not quite certain. 
Lachm., followed by Tisch. and Meyer, 
places a full stop before aAAd, and a co- 
lon after xap., thus connecting ofda yap 
more immediately with the present’ 
clause. This seems right in principle 
both on grammatical, as well as exeget- 
ical, considerations : a colon, however, 
as in text, seems preferable to a full stop, 
for there is a kind of sequence in the 
xalpw and xaphooua which can hardly 
be completely interrupted. De W., Van 
Heng., and others who retain the com- 
ma (Alford has a comma in text but a 
colon in translation), suppose an ellip- 
sis of ov udvoy before xaipw. This is 
very unsatisfactory. *AAA& ka) has here 
its idiomatic meaning ‘at etiam,’ the 
faintly seclusive force of aAAd serving 
specially to confine attention to the new 
assertion which the ca) annexes and en- 
hances ; see Fritz. Rom. vi. 5, Vol. 1. p. 
374. It may be observed that in these 
words, and also in some uses of the idi- 
omatic GAAd ydp, GAAG wey, the primary 
force of &AA& (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo 
sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
2) is so far obscured that it does practi- 
cally little more than impart a briskness 
and emphasis to the declaration; see 
Klotz, /.¢., p. 8, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 
11. p. 35. Lastly, we should be careful 
to distinguish between the present use of 
aAAX Kal and (a) where a hypothetical 
clause precedes, evoking a more distinct 
opposition, e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 15, 2 Cor, iv. 
16; (b) where an opposition is involved 
in the terms themselves, e. g. Diod. Sic. v. 
84 (Fritz.), év rats vioos GAAG Kal KaTe 
thv Actay ; or (c) where gAA& occurs in 
brisk exhortation, e. g. Soph. Philoct. 
796, GAN @ Téxvoy kai Sdpoos toxe; in 
which passage Hermann’s proposed 
emendation 7: Sdpoos does not seem 
either plausible or necessary. 


Cnap. I. 19. 


PHALTPPIAINS. 


37 


19 75 \ 24 anf ’ / > i 8 \ Ale 1¢ a 
0loa yap OTL’ TOVTO LOL aTroByaeTat ets OWTHpPLayv ta TNS VLWY 


19. of8a ydp| Confirmation of the 
words immediately preceding, the -ydp 
having its simple argumentative force. 
If with Caly., Bisp., al. this clause be 
referred to ver. 17, yap must have more 

of an explanatory force (comp. notes on 
Gail. iis 6): such a ref., however, is un- 
duly regressive; todro here can only 
mean the same as tovr@ ver. 19,—the 
more extended preaching of the gospel 
of Christ. The words tovto — cwrnplay 
occur in Job xiii. 16, and may have been 
a reminiscence. els 
cwtnptav| ‘to salvation.” The exact 
meaning of owrnpia has been very differ- 
ently explained. It has been referred to 
(a) ‘salus corporea,’ scil. ‘escape from 
present danger,’ amradAayhv, Chrys., who 
however fluctuates; ‘preservation in 
life” 1d dcov ovdé tw papripioy, Gicum., 
and apparently Syr.; (l) ‘salus spiritu- 
alis, ‘Seelenheil,’ De Wette, ‘his own 
fruitfulness to Christ,’ Alford ; (c) both 
united, ‘ for good, whether of soul (Rom. 
viii. 28) or of body’ (Acts xxvii. 34), 
Peile, Bloomf.; (d) ‘salus sempiterna,’ 
whether (a) in reference to others (Grot., 
Hamm.), or (8) in ref. to himself, ‘suam 
salutem veram et perennem,’ Van Heng. 
The last of these meanings alone seems 
to satisfy the future reference (da7of.), 
and is most in accordance with the pre- 
vailing meaning of cwrnpia in St. Paul’s 
Epistles : compare ver. 28, ch. ii. 12, and 
eis owt. Rom. i. 16, 2 Thess. ii. 13. 
51a THS K.T.A.] ‘through your suppli- 
cation and the supply of the spirit of J. C.;’ 
the two means by which the cwrnpia is 
to be realized, intercessory supplication 
on the part of man, and supply of the 
Spirit on the part of God. Meyer and 
Alford regard the gen. émxopnyias as 
dependent on dyéy, ‘ your supply to me 
(by that prayer) of, ete.,’ on the ground 
that da THs, or at least r7s would have 
been inserted. Independently of the very 


unsatisfactory meaning in a dogmatical 
point of view, this is not grammatically 
No article is required. Each 
substantive has its own defining genitive, 
and on this account the second may dis- 
pense with its article; so Winer, Gr. 
§ 19. 5, p. 118 (ed.6). Meyer is unfort- 
unate in referring to Winer in support 
of his interpretation, as that grammarian 
expressly adopts the more natural con- 
struction. éemixXopnytas 
rob Iv.| ‘supply of the Spirit’ These 
words admit of two interpretations ac- 
cording as rod Tv. is considered a gen. 
objecti or subjecti ; compare Winer, Gr. 
§ 80. 1, p. 168. If the former, the mean- 
ing will be, ‘the supply which is the 
Spirit,’ the genitive being that of ¢dentity 
or apposition (Scheuerl. Synt. § 12.1, p. 
82, 83); so Chrysost., Theoph., Gicum. 
If the latter, the meaning will be the 
‘supply which the Spirit gives,’ the gen. 
being that of the origin or agent (Har- 
tung, Casus, p. 17); so Theodoret, De 
W., Mcy. ‘This latter interpretation is 
on the whole to be preferred, as the par- 
allelism, ‘the prayers you offer—the 
aid the Spirit supplies,’ is thus more ex- 
actly retained. Wiesing. and Alf. urge 
Gal. iii. 5, but this can hardly be consid- 
ered sufficiently in point to fix the inter- 
pretation, Still less tenable is the asser-. 
tion that the gen. subjecti would have re- 
quired the order rod Ty. *I. X. emxop. as 
in Eph. iv. 16 (Alford) ; for in the first 
place examples of the contrary (and in- 
deed, usual) order are most abundant, 
see Scheuerl. Synt. p. 126, Winer, Gr. 
p- 167; and in the next place the gen. 
in Eph. /. c. is confessedly of a different 
grammatical class ; see notes in loc. The 
Spirit is here termed 7d Ty. “Inc. Xp., 
not merely because Christ gives Himself 
spiritually in and with the Holy Ghost 
(Meyer on Rom. viii. 9), but because that 
eternal Spirit proceeds from the Son; so 


exact. 


38 


PERG ee CAUN S 


Cuap. I. 20. 


dejoews Kal émvyopnyias Tod IIvedpatos Incot Xpictod, » Kata 


Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 383: in a 
word the genitive is not so much a defin- 
itive or quasi-possess. gen., as a simple 
genitive originis, Hartung, Casus, p. 23. 
Lastly, on émxopynyta, which perhaps re- 
tains a slight shade of the primary mean- 
ing of xopny. in the ampleness and liber- 
ality which it seems to hint at on the 
part of the gift and giver, see notes on 
Coloss. ii. 19, and Harless on Ephes. iv. 
16. The ém is directive, not intensive; 
see notes on Eph. l. c. 

20. kata ThY &moKap.| ‘accord- 
ing to my expectation,’ sc. ‘even as 1 am 
hoping and expecting,’ Syr., ‘sicut spe- 
ravi et confisus sum,’ Auth. The curi- 
ous word amoxapadorla (Hesych. rpoodo- 
kta, @mexdox) only here and Rom. viii. 
19 in the N. T., is derived from kdpa, 
and doxéw [possibly allied to a root dic, 
‘monstrare,’ Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. 1. 
p- 185, 267] and properly denotes ‘ cap- 
itis, scil. oculorum animique ad rem ab 
aliquo loco expectandam attenta conver- 
sio,’ and thence derivatively ‘ patient, 
persistent, looking for’ (Rom. viii. 19), 
and, with a further weakened force, 
‘calm expectation,’ as in this place; the 
meaning necessarily varying with that of 
the simple kapadorety, which, from the 
ideas of ‘attention’ (Hur. TJroad. 93) 
and ‘ observation’ (Polyb. Hist. x. 42. 
6), passes to those of ‘ suspense’ (Eur. 
Med. 1117) and simple ‘ expectation’ 
(Eur. Jph. Aul. 1433). The prep. ard 
is not properly intensive, as in drodepidw, 
Gmoevdouat, x. 7. A. (Tittm. Synon. p. 
106 sq., and even Meyer on Rom. viii. 
19), but Jocal: it primarily (so to say) 
localizes the kapadoxety, by marking ei- 
ther (a) the place from which the obser- 
vation is maintained, e.g. Joseph. Bell. 
Jud. 111.7. 26, comp. Polyb. Hist. xv1it. 
81. 4, or-(b) the quarter whence the thing 


or issue is looked for, e. g. Polyb. Hist. . 


Xvi. 2. 8,—and comes thence, as in 


amexdéxoua (Germ. ‘ abwarten,’ see notes 

on Gal. v. 5), with a gradual, but intel- 

ligible, evanescence of the local idea 

(‘ quidquid enim expectes alicunde te id 

expectare oportet,’ Fritz.), to imply little 

more than the jfixedness, permanence, and 

patience (not ‘solicitude,’ Tittm.) with — 
which the observation is continued, or 

the expectation entertained ; see Winer, 

de Verb. Compos. rv. p.14, and especially 

the excellent discussion of Fritz. /ritzsch. 

Opusc. pp. 150-157. 

Ort €v ovdevt aiax.] ‘ that in nothing 

I shall be put to shame.’ These words 

admit of various possible interpretations ; 

for example (a) 67: may be either relati- 

val, ‘that,’ 7d éami¢ew or, Chrys., or 

argumentative, ‘ because, ‘ quia,’ Vulg., 

Clarom. ; (b) ovdev) may be either neuter 

(Syr., Auth., al.), or masculine in refer- 

ence to the preachers of the gospel (Ho- 

elem.) ; again (c) atsxuvS. may be either 

passive, ‘confundar,’ Vulg., or with a 

middle force, ‘pudore confusus, ab offi- 
cio deflectam,’? Van Hengel. In this 
variety of interpretation we must be 
guided solely by the context: and this 
seems certainly in favor of the above 
translation; for (a) Gr: far more natu- 
rally follows éAms as defining the subject 
to which it refers (comp. Rom. viii. 21) 
than as supplying the reason why it is 
entertained ; the latter interrupts the se- 
quence, vitiates the logic, and leaves the 
object of hope undefined. Again, (b) 
ovdeyt cannot be masculine ; for if so, it 
would have to be arbitrarily referred only 
to the better class of those mentioned 
above, whereas if neuter it remains per- 
fectly general and inclusive, not merely 
ore ev TH Civ ovre ev Savetv, Theoph., 
— but, ‘in no respect, in no particular’ 
(comp. ver. 28), thus forming an antith- 
esis to év mdon mapp. Lastly, (c) aio. 
cannot logically be taken with any mid- 
dle force; St. Paul can scarcely know 


Cuap. I. 20. 


PHIEPPPIANS, 


39 


Tv aroKapacokiay Kat édarida pov, OTe ev ovdderd aicywSjcowar, 


> >? Pa ft ae e fy ‘ a f 

GXX eV TAaTH Tappynoia WS WavtoTe Kat viv peyaduySijoeTat 

X \ 3 A é ” 8 \ n ” 8 \ Sy , 
piatos «vy T® cwMmaTL pov, elTe Ova Coors elte Ova Yavatov. 


that the preaching will turn out to his 
salvation, and yet only hope and expect 
that he shall not fall from his duty. 
What the apostle does hope and expect 
is, not merely drt ov mepiecovrat ovTot, 
Chrys., dt: kpeloowy @oouat Tay Svoxe- 
pov, Theod., but more generally, that he 
shall not be brought to a state of shame 
(2 Cor. x. 8, 1 John ii. 28), that he shall 
not fail in the highest duties and aims of 
his life ; see De Wette in loc., who aptly 
compares the Hebrew yi}a Psalm xxxivy. 
5 (LXX. karacxuvdy), xix. 2 (LXX. 
aicxuySelnoay), and contrasts St. Paul’s 
favorite term ravxaocdat. 

GAN ev waon twapp.] ‘but (on the 
contrary) in all boldness ;’ antithesis to 
the foregoing clause introduced wich the 
full force of the adversative dAAd. don, 
as has often been remarked (see ver. 9), 
is not qualitative, ‘une pleine liberté,’ 
Rill., but, as usual, quantitative, ‘every 
form and manifestation of boldness,’ 
forming an exact opposition to éy ovder} 
above. *Ev rafpnoig is thus not merely 
‘in joyfulness’ (Wiesing., comp. Eph. 
iii. 12), and certainly not capads pavepas, 


oo, > v 

Ccum., comp. Syr. tol, Bown 
[revelata facie], but, as the contrast and 
context both imply, ‘in fiducia,’ Vule., 
‘in boldness of speech and action;’ 
comp. Eph. vi. 19. 

@s mdvtote rat viv] Temporal 
clause, following close on the foregoing 
modal predication (comp. Donalds. Gr. 
§ 444). The addition ka) viv gives a 
dignifying and consoling aspect to the 
apostle’s present condition, cheerless as 
it might seem, and supplies a retrospec- 
tive corroboration of ver. 12. 
Meyaruvanocetatev te oduy.] ‘shall 
be magnified in my body ;’ not év éuot, 


but, in accordance with the studiedly 
passive aspect given to the whole decla- 
ration (obscured by Auth.), — év rd ody., 
‘in my body;’ ‘my body shall be, as it 
were, the theatre on which Christ’s glory 
shall be displayed,’ comp. John xxi. 19; 
and in illustration of this use of év (‘sub- 
stratum of action’) see notes on Gal. i. 
24, Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, Meyaa. 
is thus not ‘shall be enlarged,’ ‘ augebi- 
tur,’ Copt. (comp. Luke i. 58, 2 Cor. x. 
15), with reference to the development 
and growth of Christ within (Rill. ; com- 
pare Gal. ii. 20, Rom. viii. 10), which 
here would not harmonize with the mo- 
dal év mapp., and still less with the local 
év odu., — but, as in Acts xix. 17, ‘shall 
be glorified,’ Sex34oera Os ort, Theod., 
‘ gloriosior apparebit,’ Just., the meaning 
being here appy. a little more forcible 
than ‘be praised’ (Alf. ; comp. Lk. i. 46, 
Acts v. 13) and pointing more to the gen- 
eral, than to the merely oral spread of the 
Lord’s glory and kingdom among men. 
etre 510 «.7.A.| ‘whether by life or by 
death ;’ two alternatives, suggested by. 
and in explanation of the preceding év 
céuatt; ‘in my body,—whether that 
body be preserved alive as an earthly in- 
strument of my Master’s glory, or be 
given up to martyrdom for His name’s 
sake: Sia pev Cwijs, dri e&elAeTo" did Sa- 
vdrou b€, Ott ovdé Sdvatos ~reiwé we Apvi}- 
caocsa avtéy, Chrys. Well then might 
the apostle say oi6a ét1...cis owtnpiav 
when he could entertain a hope and an 
expectation so unspeakably blessed. 
The whole verse, and especially this 
clause, is strongly confirmatory of the 
fuller meaning of owrnpia. 

21. €uol ydp| Confirmation and elu- 
cidation of the last clause of v.20. The 
yap has no ref. to any omitted clause (B1.}, 


40 PHILIPSTAR &. 


21 ’Eyoi yap to Gv Xpuoros Kal To arroSavelv Képoos. ™ ei 68 TO 


— ever a doubtful and precarious mode 
of explaining this particle, — but simply 
confirms the preceding assertion by show- 
ing the real nature of (wi and Sdvaros, 
according to the apostle’s present mode 
of regarding them ; ‘in my view and def- 
inition of the term, Life is but another 
name for Christ,’ Peile. The emphatic 


uo) (‘to me, in my merely personal ca- 


pacity,’ see Wiesinger) is thus the pro- 
nominal dative judicii (De W.), cr per- 
haps more correctly and more inclusively, 
the dative of ethical relation (comp. Gal. 
vi. 14); not merely ‘in my estimation,’ 
but ‘in my case,’ ‘ life in my realization 
of it,’ — a dative which is allied to, and 


more fully developed in, the dative com- ~ 


modi or incommodi ; see Bernhardy, Synt. 
i111. 9, p. 85, and especially Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 48. 6. 1 sq., by whom this use 
of the dative is well illustrated. 

Td (fv Xptaorés| ‘to live is Christ,’ 
z. e, living consists only in union with, 
and devotion to, Christ ; my whole being 
and activities are His; ‘ quicquid vivo 
Christum vivo,’ Beng.: see Gal. ii. 20, 
but observe the difference of the applica- 
tion; there the reference is to faith, here 
rather to works (De W.), the context 
showing that Xpiords, beside the idea of 
union with Him, must also involve that 
of deyotion to His service. So, perhaps 
too distinctly, Aith. (compare Calv.) ‘si 
vixero, Christo.’ Td (jy is clearly the 
subject (‘vita mea,’ Syriac, Copt.), the 
natural life alluded to in the preceding, 
and more specifically in the following 
verse. It cannot refer to spiritual life 
(Rill., comp- Chrys., Theoph.) as the 
antithesis, (jv —ézo8., is thus obscured, 
and the argument impaired: what (w) 
is in ver. 20, that must 7d (jv be here. 
kat 7d &rod. képdos| ‘and [simple 
copulative] to dieis gain ;’ death is gain, 
as I shall thus enjoy a still nearer and 
more blessed union with my Lord; ca- 


péorepovy avTG ovvécoua, Chrys., The- 
oph. Keépdos belongs only to this latter 
clause, the full meaning of which is very 
easily collected from the context ; com- 
pare verse 23. To make Xp. the subject 
to both members of the sentence and 7d 
(jv and 7d amos. accusatives of ‘refer- 
ence to’ (Kriiger, Sprachi. § 46. 4), se. 
‘ut tam in vita quam in morte lucrum 
esse preedicetur’ (Caly. ; compare Beza), 
is to mar the perspicuity, and to intro- 
duce a difficulty in point of grammar, as 
7d amos. could scarcely be ‘in morien- 
do:’ such accusatives commonly point 
to things or actions which may, so to 
say, be conceived as extensible, and over 
the whole of which the predication can 
range ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 9. 3, p. 68, 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4.1. Numerous 
examples of similar expressions are cited 
by Wetstein in loc., the most pertinent 
of which is Joseph. Gell. v11. 8, 6, oup- 
popa 7d Civ eorw avdpdérois ovx Sdvaros, 
as it hints at the purely substantival char- 
acter of 7d (fv (opp. to Alf.) and 7d 
amogavety. The practical aspects of the 
subject will be found in Heber, Serm, 
XVI. XVII. 

22. ei 56 rd Cv w.7.A.] ‘but if my 
living in the flesh,—if this is to me the 
(the medium of ) fruit from my labor ;? so 
Vulg., Claroman., Goth., and (with ob- 
scured todrv) Syr., Copt.: antithetical 
sentence suggested by the remembrance 
of his calling as an apostle. There are 
difficulties in this verse in the individual 
expressions, as well as in the connection 
and sequence of thought. We will (1) 
briefly notice the former: (a) e is not 
problematical, ‘if it chance,’ Tyndale, 
Cranm., but as Meyer correctly observes, 
syllogistic, — and virtually assertory. (8) 
The addition év capx’ does not imply 
any qualitative difference between 7d Cav 
here and 7d (jy in ver. 21 (Rill.), but 
guards against it being understood in the 


Cuar. I. 21, 22, 


————e— ee rltC( 


Cuar. I. 22: 


PHILIPPIANS. 


41 


: , ar \ ” \ r 
Civ ev capki, TOUTO juor KapTOS Epyou' Kal TL aipnaopat, ov yvo- 


higher sense, which the preceding 7d aoa. 
Képdos (‘to die, z. e. to live out of the 
flesh with Christ, is gain’) might other- 
wise seem naturally to suggest. (7) 
Tovdro is not a redundancy ‘ per Hebrais- 
mum’ (see Glasse, Phil. Sacr. p. 738 
[219]), but is designed to give special 
prominence and emphasis to the idca 
contained in the preceding words ; com- 
pare Winer, Gr. § 44.4, p. 144. (6) In 
kapmds épryov the genitive is not a gen. of 
apposition, ‘ opus pro fructu habet,’ Ben- 
gel, nor a gen. objecti, ‘profit for the 
work’ (Rill.}, but a simple gen. subjecti 
[origins], ‘proventus operis,’ De Wette, 

v- ow V 


, {5 Lo [fructus in operibus 


meis] Syr., 7. e. ‘conveys with it, is the 
condition of fruit from apostolical labor,’ 
the &pyov referring to the /aborious nature 
of the apostolic work (Acts xiii. 2, 1 
Thess. v. 15, 2 Tim. iv. 5); kapropopa, 
Siidckwv Kal dwri(wy mdvras, Theoph.: 
comp. Raphel, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 622. 
(2) The connection then seems to be as 
follows: in verse 21 the apostle had 
spoken of life and death from a strictly 
personal point of view (éuol) ; in this as- 
pect death was gain. The thought, how- 
ever, of his official labors reminds him 
that his life bears blessings and fruitful- 
ness to others; so he pauses; ‘ objecta 
spe conversionis multorum, hzeret atque 
heesitat,’ Just.: so, in substance, The- 
ophyl. (who has explained this clause 
briefly and perspicuously), Chrys., 'The- 
odoret, Gicumen., and after them, with 
some variations in detail, De W., Meyer, 
and the best modern editors. Of the 
other interpretations the most plausible 
is (a) that of Auth., Beng., al., accord- 
ing to which rodro x. r. A. forms the ap- 
odosis, éori yo: being supplied after ev 
capri, ‘ but if I live in the flesh, this is,’ 
etc. ; the least so (Lb) that of Beza, Genev. 
(amended by Conyb., but satisfactorily 
6 


answered by Alf.), according to which é 
is ‘ whether,’ and rapmbs épyou = ‘ opere 
pretium’ (comp. Grot., Hamm., Schole- 
field, Hints, p. 105,—a more than doubt- 
ful translation), scil. ‘and whether to 
live in the flesh were profitable to me, 
and what,’ ete. The objection to (a) is 
the very harsh and unusual nature of the 
ellipsis; to (b), independently of gram- 
matical objections, the halting and incon- 
sequent nature of the argument ; see Alf. 
in loc. kal Ti aiphoopar 
k. T. A.] ‘then, or why, what I am to choose 
[observe the middle] Z know not ;’ apo- 
dosis to the foregoing. The principal 
difficulty lies in the use of cai. Though 
no certain example of an exact/y similar 
use of ei—xa) has been adduced from the 
N. T. (2 Cor. ii. 2 [De Wette] is not in 
point, being there the «al of rapid inter- 
rogation, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 
147), yet the use of cai at the beginning 
of the apodosis is so common (see Bru- 
der, Conc. s. v. kal, D, p. 455) as to ren- 
der such a use after ef by no means im- 
probable; see examples in Hartung, 
Partik. s. v. wat, 2.6, Vol. 1. p. 130, and 
compare the somewhat similar use of 
“atque,’ Hand, Turseil. Vol. 1. p. 481 sq. 
In such cases the proper force of tal is 
not wholly lost. Just as, in brief logical 
sentences, it constantly implies that if 
one thing be true, then another will be 
true also, e.g. et ptoe Kiweirat Kay Bla 
Kwndeln, Kav ef Bia cal pice, Arist. de 
Anim. ch. 8, p. 9 (ed. Bekk.), —so here, 
if life certainly subserve to apostolic use- 
fulness, there will also be a difficulty as 
to choice. It is thus unnecessary to as- 
sume any aposiopesis after the first mem- 
ber, scil. ‘non repugno,’ ‘non zgre fero,’ 
Miiller, Rill. There is only a slight, 
pause, and slight change from the ex- 
pected, to a more emphatic sequence, 
which this semi-ratiocinative xa) very ap- 
propriately introduces. On 


42 PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuar. I. 23; 


pitw * cuvéyopar 6€ x THY S00, THY eTISUplay Exwv eis TO dva~ 


the use of the less exact ti for mérepor, 
see Winer, Gr. § 25.1, p. 153 (ed. 6); 
and on that of the future in a delibera- 
tive clause, Winer, 7b. § 41. 4. b. p. 267. 
The strict alliance between the future 
and the subjunctive renders such an in- 
terchange very intelligible. 

ov yvwpi¢w] ‘Idonot recognize,’ ‘Ido 
not clearly perceive,’ — a somewhat excep- 
tional use in the N. T. of ywp., which 
is nearly always ‘notum facio.’ For 
examples of the present use, see Ast, 
Lex, Plat. s. v.; comp. Job xxxiv. 25 
(txx), iv. 16 (Symm.). 

23. cvvéxopmat SE x. 7. A.] ‘yea, I 
am held in a strait by the two ;’ antitheti- 
cal explanation of the last member of 
verse 22; the fuintly oppositive 5& (not 
‘metabatic” [Meyer] on the one hand, 
nor equivalent to @AA& on the other) 
placing the emphatic ovvéxouam in gentle 
contrast with the preceding od yvwpi¢w. 
The reading yap (Ztcc.) has scarcely any 
critical support, and is only a correction 
of the less understood dé. On the real 
difference between these two particles in 
sentences like the present, see especially 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.363. The prep. 
é« is here not used for amd (Bloomf.), 
nor yet for dé (Heinr.,— instrumentality 
would have been expressed by a simple 
dative, e. g. Matth. iv. 24, Luke viii. 37, 
Acts xviii. 5, xxviii. 8), but with its 
proper force points to the origin of the 
ovvoxn, the sources out of which it arises ; 
see notes on Gal. ii. 16, where the uses 
of this preposition in N. T. are briefly 
noticed. Lastly, the article is not pros- 
pective (compare Syr.) but retrospective 
(Mey., al.), referring to the two alterna- 
tives previously mentioned. ~This is 
confirmed by the apparent emphasis on 
ovvéex., and the illustrative connection 
with it of the two classes which follow. 
thy émiduplav €xwv] ‘having my 
desire ;’ not merely ‘a desire,’ Author., 


nor ‘the desire previously alluded to,’ 
Hoel.,— as no émuuia, strictly speaking, 
has been alluded to,—but ‘the desire 
which I now feel,’ ‘my desire.’ The 
émauuta thus stands absolutely. its direc- 
tion being defined in the words which 
follow. A very eloquent and feeling 
application of this text will be found in 
Manning, Serm. xx. Vol. 111. p. 370 sq. 
eis Td Gvadtoat| ‘towards depart- 
ing,’ ‘turned to departure ;’ not ‘ desid- 
erium solvendi’ (rod avad., Origen, in a 
free citation), nor even quite, ‘ the desire 
to depart,’ Conyb. (comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 44. 6, p. 294), —both of which would 
seem to imply the not unusual definitive 
genitive after ém3. (comp. Thucyd. vir. 
84, Tov meiy em), but with the proper 
force of the preposition eis, ‘ desiderio 
tendens ad dimissionem ;? compare Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 49. a, p. 854. The preposi- 
tion is omitted in DEFG; Chrysostom 
(comm.), apparently by accident, as the 
construction would not thus be made 
more easy. “AvaAdoat is not ‘ dissolvi,’ 
Vulg , nor even ‘ liberari,’ Syr. pokos 
(comp. Schoettg, in loc.), but, perhaps 
with primary reference to breaking up a 
camp or loosing an anchor, ‘ migrare,’ 
ZEth. (comp. Judith xiii. 1, Alian, Var. 
Hist. 1v. 23), and thence with a shade 
of meaning imparted by the context, 
‘ discedere a vita,’ 7) évretSev amadAaynh, 
Theod.; compare notes on 2 Tim. iv. 6, 
and see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 286 
sq., by whom this word is copiously il- 


lustrated ; add too Perizonius, on /Xlian, 


Var. Hist. l.c. The translation adopted 
by Tertull. ‘recipi’ has perhaps refer- 
ence to the ‘receptui canere,’ and is thus 
virtually the same ; comp. Mill., Prole- 
gom, p. LXVII. kal ovy 
Xp. eivat| From the immediate con- 
nection of this clause with dvaditom dog- 
matical deductions haye been made in 


Cuap. I. 24. 


Adoar Kal adv Xpict@ éivar, 
DA ‘\ \ > / > lal \ 
TO Sé Emripévery Ev TH TapKt 


reference to the intermediate state ; ‘clare 
ostenditur animas sanctorum ex hac vita 
sine peccato migrantium statim post 
mortem esse cum Christo,’ Est.; comp. 
Cyrill.-Alex. cited by Forbes, Jnstruct. 
xu. 8. 33, Bull, Hngl. Works, p. 42 
(Oxf., 1844), Reuss, Theol. Chré. 1v. 21, 
Vol. 11. p. 240. Without presuming to 
make hasty deductions from isolated pas- 
sages, we may safely rest on the broad 
and sound opinion of Bishop Pearson, 
that life eternal may be regarded as in- 
itial, partial, and perfectional, and that 
the blessed apostle is now in the fruition 
of that second state, and ‘is with Christ 
who sitteth at the right hand of God,’ 
Creed, Art. x11. Vol. 1. p. 467, and com- 
pare Polye. ad Phyl. § 9, cis tov dpead- 
Mevoy avrots Témy cic) mapa Kuplw, Clem. 
Rom. 1 Cor. § 5, éropetan [TMérpos] eis 
Tov oped. Témov THs Sdéns. For a con- 
trary view, see Burnet, State of Departed, 
ch, 111. p. 58; and lastly, for a practical 
application of the verse, Farindon, Serm. 
xxxvi. Vol. 11. p. 1006 (edit. 1672). 
The meaning involved in the words civ 
Xp. eivat, in reference to the soul’s incor- 
poreal state, is explained profoundly, 
though perhaps somewhat singulary, by 
Hofmann, Schriftb. 11. 2, Vol. 11. p. 449, 
‘selbst korperlos, wird er den Leib, in 
welchem die Fiille der Gottheit wohnt, 
zu seiner Wohnung haben ;’ comp. De- 
litasch, Bibl. Psychol. v1. 6, p. 383 sq. 

TWOAA@ yap K.7.A.] ‘for it is very far 


better,’ scil. being with Christ is so (for | 


me); explanation of the foregoing de- 
sire. The comparative strengthened by 
uaAAov gives a force and energy to the 
assertion that is here very noticeable and 
"appropriate ; compare Mark vii. 36, 2 
Cor. vii. 13, and Winer, Gr. § 35. 1, p. 
214. The reading is somewhat doubt- 
ful : yap is omitted by DEFGKL; great 
majority of mss., several Vy. and some Ff. 


PIL PP WANS 


45 


TOMA@ yap paAdov KpElccor" 


’ a 
dvayKatotepov Ov’ vas. 


(Rec., Griesb. but om. om.) ; as, however, 


itis found in ABC; 31. 67**; Copt.; 
Or. (1), Bas., Aug. (often and explic. — 
as )1FG show in this passage marks of 
incertitude in reading méow for mwodAd, 
and lastly, as yap might have been 
thoughtto interrupt the sequence, we 
may perhaps safely acquiesce in the in- 
sertion with Zachm., Tisch., and even 
Elz. and Scholz. 

24. 7d Ge Ewmipevety k.7.A.| ‘yet 
to tarry in my flesh.’ In the former verse 
the apostle stated what is kpetocoy, for 
himself, now he turns to what is dvay- 
katérepov in regard of his converts. Aé 
is thus simply ‘but,’ ‘ yet,’—scarcely 
‘nevertheless,’ Auth., which is commonly 
a more suitable translation of aAAd: on 
the difference between these particles 
(‘ verum — sed ’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
Il. pp. 33, 361. The ém in erm. im- 
plies rest in a place (comp. notes on Gal. 
i. 18), and hints at a more protracted 
stay ; compare Rom. vi. 1.. The next 
words €v 77) cap) are, as Meyer correctly 
observes, scarcely quite the same as év 
capk) in ver. 22; there the expression 
was general, here more specific and in- 
dividualizing ; see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. 
PAGE avayKatstepov 
51? buds] ‘more needful on your account ;? 
not an inexact comparative (De W.), 
nor to be diluted into a positive (Clarom., 
compare Syr.), nor with reference to the 
apostle’s own feelings, scil. ‘quam ut 
meo desiderio satisfiat,’ Van Heng., Ben- 
gel,— but simply ‘more needful,’ scil. 
than the contrary course, than dvaAdoas 
k.7.A. This latter course St. Paul 
might have thought dvaykatoy on his 
own account, a thing to be prayed for 
and hastened; continuance, however, 
was avaykatdrepoy on account of his con- 
verts. The meaning proposed by Loesn., 
‘ preestat, ‘melius est’ (comp. Aith.), has 


44 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cnap. I. 25. 


5 ‘ a : hy 5 7 ae oN a A ton > 
Kat TOVTO TETOLY@S vida OTL EVO) KAL TTAPALEVvad TTACLW Up ELS 


25. mapayeva| So Lachm. with ABCD'FG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Clarom. ; Lat. Ff. 


(approved by Griesb., Alf). 


Tisch. reads cvuprapamevd, appy. only with D?EKL ; 


majority of mss,; Chrys. (expressly), Theod., Dam., Theophyl., al. (Rec., Scholz, 


Mey.). 


While on the one hand, it is possible that the unusual compound might 


have been changed into the more simple form, still, on the other hand, the dative 


nacw might have suggested the insertion. 


too preponderant to be safely reversed. 


no lexical authority, and is not supported 
by the examples adduced Obs. p. 353. 
25. kal rodTo memordaes| ‘And 
being persuaded, being sure, of this ;’ scil., 
that my émmévew év tH oapkd is more 
necessary on your account. Tlerois@s 
has thus its natural force and regimen 
(ver. 6), and is not to be explained away 
adverbially, wemoiwSdtws Kal ddioTdeTws 


oda ,Theoph., Ao fleo2 [confidenter] 


Syr., Goth., Copt., or blended with ot6a 
(ZBth.), but is to be closely connected 
with todro, while ofa is joined only with 
drt; ‘ persuadens mihi vitam meam vobis 
esse [magis] necessariam, scio quod Deus 
me vobis adhuc concedet,’ Corn. a Lap. 
ofa] ‘ZI know;’ not with any undue 
emphasis, ‘ preevideo,’ Van Heng., for 
see ch. ii. 17, but simply ‘I know.’ se. it 
is my present feeling and conviction ; 
compare Acts xx. 25. For somewhat 
analogous uses of oda, see the examples 
adduced by Van Heng., but observe that 
even in the strongest (Hom. J/. vr. 447) 
oida still refers more to the persuasions 
of the speaker than to any absolutely 
prophetic certitude. 

mapameva| ‘continue here (on earth),’ 
‘bleiben und dableiben,’ Meyer, who 
aptly cites Herod. 1. 30, réxva éxyevd- 
peva ka) mdvTa wapapetvavta ; add Plato, 
Phedo, p.115 D, ereidav miw Td pdppa- 
Koy, ovxeTt Suty wopauera, ib. Crito, p. 51, 
mapapelvy, Opp. to meroucety &AAoce. On 
the reading see critical note. The dative 
naow Sui may be the dative of interest, 
‘to support and comfort you’ (Kriger, 


The uncial authority is moreover far 


Sprachl. § 48. 4), but is here far more 
naturally governed by the mapa in the 
compound ; see Plato, Pheed. l. c., Apol:. 
p. 89 B, apparently Protag. p. 335 p, and 
contrast 1 Cor. xvi. 6, mpbs duas mapa- 
jlev@, where the mpds gains its force from 
the intended journey to them just before 
mentioned ; here the apostle is mentally 
with those he is addressing. This is a 
somewhat more common regimen than 
Kriiger (Sprachl. § 48. 11.9) seems in- 
clined to admit. 

eis THY buav K.7.A.] ‘for your fur- 
therance in, and joy of the fuith ;’ not ‘for 
your furth., and for your joy,’ etc., Van 
Heng.,—there being here no reason 
whatever to depart from the ordinary 
rule; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. d, p. 116, 
and comp. Middleton, Gr. Art: p. 368. Tt 
is searcely necessary to say that there is 
not here any kind of znversion (‘ for your 
joy and for the increase of your faith’) 
as Syriac, nor any disjunction (‘ for your 
furth., and for your faith, and for your 
joy’), as in /&th., nor any conjunction 
(‘for the advancement of the joy of your 
faith’), as Macknight: still the rela- 
tion of the genitive to the two substan- 
tives seems slightly different ; in the first 
case it is a gen. subjecti, referrible per- 
haps to the class of the possess. gen. ; in 
the latter it is a gen. originis, ‘quod ex 
fide promanat,’ Zanch., and belongs to 
the general division of the gen. of abla- 
tion ; compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 11. 1, 
p- 79, Donalds. Gr. § 448 sq. On xapd, 
compare Reuss, Thél. Chré. 1v. 18, 
Vol. 11. p. 202, whose definition how- 


Cnap. I. 26, 27. 


‘ 


THY ULOV TpoKOTY Kal Yyapav THs TisTEws, 


PHIELEPPEANYS. 


45 


06 7 x 


wa TO Kavya 


c lal - 7 ’ a3 Cote) > xX \ fol > A / 
vpav Teptaceiy ev Xpict@ Inood év enol dua Ths €uns Tapovotas 


/ \ Clo m 
TANW TPOS UpLAS. 
Live as becometh the gos- 
pel, that whether absent or 
present I may hear well of 
you. Be not dismayed, ye 
are sufferers for Christ. 


ever, ‘ cette sérénité de l’ame qui la pré- 
serve de tout découragement dans l’ad- 
versité,’ imparts to xap& too passive a 
character. Xapa is rather that active and 
operative emanation of love and thank- 
fulness that forms the sort of spiritual 
equipoise to eipqyn and Sromovh. 

26. fva Td Kadxnma K.T.A.] Sin 
order that your matter of boasting may 
abound in Jesus Christ in me;’ more spe- 

_ cific statement of the purpose of the 
apostle’s continuance with his converts ; 
the previous abstract eis thy buay mpor. 
«. T.A. being expanded into the more 
definite and concrete iva x. 7. A. These 
words, simple as they seem, have not been 
always clearly understood. _In the first 
place tat xn mais not the same as Kav- 
xnois; not ‘gloriatio qua gloriamini,’ 
Corn. a Lap., but ‘ gloriandi materies’ 
(nban, Jere. xvii. 14), as in Rom. iv. 2, 
1 Cor. ix. 15, and appy. everywhere in the 
N. T. (see notes on Gal. vi. 4), this ‘ma- 
teries’ being 7d éornpixdae év TH micTet, 
Chrys., or generally, their possession of 
the gospel (Meyer), their condition as 
Christians. Again, €vy Xpior@ is not 
to be connected, directly or indirectly, 
with xatxnua (‘occasion de vous glori- 
fier d’ étre unis a Christ,’ Rill.) but with 
mepiooedn, the qualitative év Xp. defining, 
as it were, the blessed sphere in which 
the increase takes place, and out of which, 
Christianly speaking, it has no existence. 
Lastly év é wot is neither=8? éuod, Hein., 
nor ‘propter me,’ Grot., nor even ‘de 
me,’ Beza, but ‘in me,’ Vulg.,— the 
preposition here marking the substratum 
of the action, the mirror, as it. were 
(Zanch.), in which the whole gracious 


vA ld lal fal a 
27 Movov a&lws tov evayyediov Tod Xpiotod 
Pi A n 
ToNTeved Se, iva elte EAS@V Kal idwv Duds elite 
2 \ si lal 
ATOV AKOVTW TA TEPL ULOV, OTL OTHKETE EV Evi 


procedure was displayed; see notes on 
Gal. i. 24. It is thus not to be connect- 
ed with katxnua directly, or as in Chrys., 
by inversion, tva @xw KavxaoSa év buiv 
pet(dvws, nor even with epic. alone, 
but with the complete idea 7d kavy. me- 
pico. €v Xp- Thus the whole seems clear : 
the cavxnyua is their condition as Chris- 
tians; éy Xp. defines the holiness and 
purity of its increase; ev euol, the seat 
and substratum of the so defecated ac- 
tion. 61a THS K.T.A. 1S 
to be closely connected with éeuoi as de- 
fining the exact means by which the in- 
crease of matter of boasting, thus specifi- 
eally Christian, is to take place éy euot. 
Passages like the present, in which dif- 
ferent predications are grouped closely 
together, will repay careful analysis. 
Here it will be seen év Xp. is the mysti- 
eal and generic predication of manner, 
ev of place, 5:4 THs map. of special instru- 
mentality, involving also in its substan- 
tive the predication of time; compare 
notes on Ephes. i. 8, and Donalds, Gr. 
§ 444. 

27. wdvov]. ‘ Only;’ my persuasion 
then being as I have told you, this is the 
sole thing that I specially press upon 
you, and exact from you as indispensa- 
ble; rodro éort 7d (ytovmevoy mdvov Kab 
obdey &AAO, Chrys. ; compare Gal. ii. 10, 
y. 13, in which latter passage, as here, 
‘verborum tanquam agmen ab illo duci- 
tur,’ Van Heng. In this one requisition 
many weighty duties are involved. 

Tod evayy. Tod Xp.] ‘the gospel of 
Christ, i. e. which relates to, which tells 
of, Christ ; rod Xp. being the gen. objecti, 
not, as Ath. would seem to imply, sub- 


46 


PHIETPPIANS. 


Cuap. I. 97. 


TVEUMAT!, pad Woy cvvadrodvTes TH mioTEL TOD evayyedion, 


jecti, ‘the gospel taught by Him.’ In 
such cases the nature of the gen. is not 
perfectly certain, but, from the analogy 
supplied by partially similar use of 
evayy., is more probably that objecti ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 168, but ob- 
serve that the ref. to Rom. i. 3 is of 
doubtful pertinence. 

moAitevecse] ‘have your conversa- 
tion,’ ‘ behave yourselves,’ or more exactly, 
‘lead your life of (Christian) citizen- 
ship;’ compare Acts xxiil. 1. It can 
scarcely be doubted that this word, oc- 
curring once only in St. Paul’s Epis- 
tles, though examples of very similar 
exhortations are not wanting (Eph. iv. 
1, Col. i. 10, 1 Thess. ii. 12) has been 
studiedly used instead of the more com- 
mon wepimareiv, to give force to the idea 
of fellow-citizenship,— not specially and 
peculiarly with Christ (Heinr.), but with 
one another in Him, — joint membership 
in a heavenly mwoAitevya, comp. ch. iii. 
20. Numerous examples of a similar 
metaphorical use of the word (‘ vivere, 
non quoad spiritum et animam, sed 
quoad mores,’ Loesn., ‘ad normam insti- 
tutorum in Republica mores vitseque ra- 
tionem componere,’ Krebs.) will be found 
in Wetstein zn loc., Krebs, Obs. p. 245, 
Loesn. Obs. p. 226, and especially in 
Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 799 sq. 

iva etre €ASav KeTmA.} ‘in order 
that, whether having come and seen you or 
else remaining absent, I may hear the things 
concerning you.’ This clause, though 
perfectly intelligible, is apparently some- 
what inexact in structure. It would 
seem that axovow (for which Lachmann, 
with BD!; 10 mss. ; Basm., reads axovw) 
really performs a kind of double office ; 
in the one case it stands in antithesis to 
idéyv (per orat. variat.) ; in the second 
place it repeats itself (Van Heng.), or 
suggests some appropriate verb (ebppay- 
Sw, Chrys., yv@, De Wette) immediately 


before ét1: in a word, quoad sensum it 
seems to belong to amdy, quoad structuram 
to va. Attempts have been made to de- 
fend the construction as it stands, either 
(a) by referring &kovow zeugmatically to 
both clauses, ‘j’apprenne a votre sujet 
que,’ Rill. ; or (8) by understanding it to 
imply ‘ hearing from themselves,’ in refer- 
ence to the first clause, ‘hearing from 
others,’ in the second, Meyer. This last 
explanation is ingenious, but is appar- 
ently precluded by the opposition be- 
tween idey duds and dkovow 7d mep) duav, 
which seems too distinct to have been 
otherwise than specially intended. There 
must be few, however, who do not pre- 
fer the warmhearted incuria of such a 
brevity of expression to restorations like 
elre CASOv Kal idédv, elte arov akotow TH 
mept juav, akolw ott xk. 7.A., or still 
worse, amay Kal dkovoas Ta T. tu. yO 
ért x. T. A., as Suggested by modern com- 
mentators. ori oTHKeTel 
‘that ye are standing ;’ fuller expansion 
and definition of 7& wept Suadv; the ex- 
planatory clause being in structural de- 
pendence upon the principal member, 
according to the ordinary and simplest 
form of attraction ; see especially Winer, 
Gr. § 66. 5, p. 551, where this and other 
forms of attraction and assimilation are 
perspicuously discussed. The present 
form of attraction is especially common 
after verbs of knowledge, perception, 
ete., e.g. Mark xii. 34, Acts iii. 10, 1 
Cor. xvi. 18, 1 Thess. ii. 1, al. Srqxew, 
it may be observed, is not per se, ‘to 
stand fast,’ Author. Ver., ‘ perstare,’ 
Beza, but simply ‘stare,’ Vulg., Syriac, 
Goth., the ideas of readiness (compare 
Chrys.), persistence, etc., being imparted 
by the context ; compare ch. iy. 1, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 13, Gal. v..1, 1 Thess. iii. 8, 2 Thess. 
ii, 15. év €v) mvetpuari] 
‘in one spirit ;’ in one common higher 
principle of our nature. The addition 


? 


’ 


OE eT 


Crap. I. 28. 


PHILELP PLANS: 


AT 


28 \ \ r 2 5 Oe eX a 5) L e 
Kab fy TWTVPOMEVvOL EV MNOEVL VTO TWV GVTLKELLEVOV, 1)TLS 


“ud WuxH seems certainly to show that 
mvevua is here the human spirit, the 
higher part of our immaterial nature (see 
Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 48, Vol. 
11. p. 498), that in which the agency of 
the Holy Spirit is especially seen and 
felt. This common unity of the spirit 
is, however, so obviously the effect of 
the inworking of the Holy Spirit, that an 
indirect reference to 7d Tvedua (compare 
Ephes. iv. 4) becomes necessarily in- 
volved. Indeed in most cases in the 
N. T. it may be said that in every men- 
tién of the human tveiua some reference 
to the eternal Spirit may always be rec- 
ognized ; sce notes on 2 Tim. i. 7, and 
compure Delitasch, Bibl. Psychol. 1v. 5, 
p- 144 sq. Mia Wuxh| 
‘with one soul striving together for the faith 
of the gospel ;’ making your united ef- 
forts from the common faith from one 
common centre and seat of interests, af- 
feciions, and energies. As the higher 
avedya Which gave direction was to he 
one and common to them all, so was the 
lower ux? which obeyed those behests 
to be one, — one common seat of con- 
cordant affections and energies. The 
remark of Bengel is true and deep ; ‘ est 
interdum’ inter sanctos naturalis aliqua 
antipathia: hee vincitur ubi unitas est 
non solum spiritus, sed etiam anime.’ 
On the difference between the mvedua 
(‘ vis superior, agens, imperans in hom- 
ine’) and the wuxf, the sphere of the 
will and affections, the centre of the per- 
sonality, sec Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. 
vi. p. 145 sq., Beck, Bibl. Sceleniehre, 11. 
12, 15, p. 50 sq. 

cuvasAotvrtes must be united with 
fac Wuxi, thus forming a participial, and 
indeed psychological, parallel to orjxew 
ev. Tv. It is somewhat singular that 
the best ancient Vy. (Syr., Vulg., Clar., 
ZEth., Copt.), with Chrys., al., agree in 
referring mug Wuxh to orfxere. Such a 


construction, however, has but little to 
recommend it in point of grammar, and 
still less in point of psychology: mid 
yux7 stands correctly in prominence 
after the semi-emphatic év éy) mv. (comp. 
Jelf, Gr. § 902), and forms a modal ad- 
junct to the undefined cuvadaAodivtes es- 
pecially significant and appropriate ; or7- 
kew ev Tvevuat, cvvasrely TH Wuxn. The 
force of the preposition atv has been dif- 
ferently estimated ; it is referred by the 
Greek expositors to the fellowship of the 
Philipp. (cuwrapadauBdvere aAdAhAous, 
Chrys.) ; by Meyer and others to fellow- 
ship with St. Paul; the former seems 
more suitable to the context. 

TH whore] ‘for the faith;’ dat. com- 
modi: not under the regimen of ovr, 
‘adjuvantes fidem,’ Erasm.,—an un- 
exampled prosopopeeia; nor a dat. in- 
strum. (more precisely termed by Krii- 
ger, a ‘dynamic’ dative, Sprachl. § 48. 
15), ‘fide Ev.,’ Calv., ‘per fidem Ev.,’ 
Beza, — this construction having previ- 
ously occurred in the case of uid uxf. 
Mioris, here, as nearly always in the 
N. T., has a subjective reference; see 
notes on Gal. i. 23. 

28. trupdpevotl ‘being terrified :’ 
dim. Aeyéu. in N. T.; properly used in 
reference to scared horses (Diodor. Sic. 
XVII. 34, wrupduevor Ta YaArwa Sieostov- 
vo), thence generally, though often with 
some tinge of its more special meaning, 
as in Plut. Mor. p. 800 c, wire der whre 
gwyn mTvpduevoy, and lastly, as here, in 
a purely general sense, e.g. [Plato], Az- 
toch. § 16, od &y more wrupetns Toy Sdva- 
tov; comp. Hesych. mripera’ cetera, 
gpoBeirat, dpirrer, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
11. p.312. Itis not improb. derived from 
aroot TITY-,—and allied with mroéw; 
see Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 100. 
Tav avTiketmévawr] * the opposers,’ 
‘your adversaries ;? compare 1 Cor. xvi. 
9, 2 Thess. ii. 4, Luke xiii. 17, xxi. 15. 


48 PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. I. 28, 29, 


> AY > tal ” > / po aN \ Fi f ‘ fa) 
€otly avTols évdevEts amwArelas, buiv é owTnpias, Kal TOUTO 


ato @eod: 


Who these were is not perfectly certain. 
The context and general use of the word 
seem both to point to open and avowed 
enemies of Christianity; not Judaists, 
but unbelieving Jews (Usteri, Lehrb. p. 
332, comp. Acts xvii. 5), or, perhaps 
even more probably, Gentiles ; compare 
Acts xvi. 19 sq. HTLs 
€oriv «.7.A.] ‘the which is to them, 
‘seeing it is,’ etc.; viz., when they see, 
as they cannot fail to do, if they will 
pause to consider, that they cannot in- 
timidate you; dtay yap of BidKovtes TOY 
SiwKopevey wy wepryévwvTat, of émiBovadcv- 
ovtes Tay emiBovAcvo“evwr, of KpaTovyTeEs 
TOY KpaTouuEevay, odK a’Trosey ora: SjAOV 
avrois, St GroAobvTal, btt ovdev icxtoou- 
ow; Chrys. The ée7ts, as in Eph. iii. 13 
al., has here a faint explanatory force (see 
especially notes on Gal. iv. 23), and is 
the logical relative to wh mrupdu. Kk. T. A., 
though grammatically connected (by at- 
traction) with the predicate évdeiés ; see 
examples of this species of‘attraction in 
Winer, Gram, § 24. 3, p. 150; compare 
also § 66.5. 2, p. 552, and Madvig, Synt. 
§ 98. The dative airois is the dative 
incomm. or, of ‘interest’ (Kriig., Sprachl. 
§ 48. 4), and is dependent on évderéis, not 
on amwdrcias (Holem.),—a needlessly 
involved construction. The reading of 
Rec. aitots pev éorlv has but little criti- 
cal support [KL; Theodoret, al.], and 
is properly rejected by all the best edi- 
tors. butvy 8& cSrnplas| 
‘but to you (an evidence) of salvation ;’ 
scil. of final salvation, as opposed to the 
preceding amréAcia; ‘ipsos perdet et du- 
cet in gehennam, vos autem ducet ad 
salutem et gloriam,’ Corn. a Lap. ; com- 


pare similar antitheses, Rom. ix. 22 sq., ° 


1 Cor. i. 18, al., and on the force of amd- 
Acta, notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9. The 
present reading is somewhat doubtful: 
Suay is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 


ore buiv éxapiosn To bmép Xpictod, ov povov 


(so Meyer, Alf.) with ABC?; 4 mss. ; 
Clarom., Sangerm. ; Chrys. (ms.), Aug., 
al., and is plausible on account of the 
possible conformation of iptv to abtois. 
The text is, however, strongly supported 
(DSEFKL [iyivy C1D1G; 73]; Vulg., 
Goth., Copt., Basm., th. (Platt, Pol.), 
Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod.), and has 
apparently the diplomatic preponderance 
plainly in its favor. 

kal todrTo «.7.A.] ‘and this from 
God,’ comp. Eph. ii. 8 ; 7. e. not merely 
“vos salutem consecuturos esse,’ Calvin, 
which would arbitrarily limit rodro to 
the latter member ; nor even ‘ illud, ad- 
versarios quidem perituros, vos vero sa- 
lutem,’ etc., Grot., but, as the consola- 
tory nature of the context seems to re- 
quire, with reference to the whole preced- 
ing (certainly not succeeding, Syr. Bth., 
Clem.-Alexan. Strom. 1v. p. 604, Pott.) 
declaration, in fact to émldeiztis (Peile, 


De W., Alf.) ; ‘et hoc sane non augu-: 


rium humanum est, sed divinum,’ Van 
Heng., and sim., Michaelis. Whether 
it be recognized or not as such, there 
still is this token of the issue for either 
side, and it is from God ; compare Wie- 
sing. in loc. 

29. Ort buty x.7.A.] Reason for the 
declaration immediately preceding, by 
an appeal to their own cases: not ex- 
actly, motives to steadfastness (De W.) ; 
as, in the first place, the exhortation to 
be steadfast is implicit rather than ex- 
plicit ; and, secondly, such motives would 
have been more naturally introduced by 
ydp. The apostle says, the evdezts 
k. T. A. is verily not an ‘humanum’” but 
a ‘divinum augurium,’ because the grace 
given to you (observe the slightly em- 
phatic position, — whatever it may be to 
others) is such that you are thereby ena- 
bled not only to believe in Christ, but 
also to suffer for him: the double favor 


Gwar. -I. 30.—II. 1: 


PHILIPPIANS. 


49 


»% > InN , > \ \ heal AGS 3: a , 80 \ 
TO €lS AUTOV TioTEVEeLY UNA Kal TO UTEP AUTOV TAT YXeEL, TOL 


BLN > a ” e 3" > ? \ \ a ? id ? b] ? 
QUTOV AYWVa EXOVTES OvoV ELOETE €V EOL KAL VUV AKOUETE EV €{40l. 


Be united in spirit; be 
lowly in heart as was Christ, 


II. Ei tis ody trapdkrnow ev Xpiota, el ts 


who humbled Himself unto death, and was exalted with every measure of exaltation. 


you have received affords the surest 
proof of the essentially divine nature of 
the token ; see Meyer tn /oc. 

exaniadn] ‘was freely given ;’ 
dvarivels TH Ocw, Kal xdpw clvar A€éywv 


Td way 


ka xdpioua Kal Swpedy To mdoxew imEp 
Xpiorod, Chrys. The aorist is used as 
referring to the period when the initial 
grace which has since wrought in the 
hearts of the Philippians was first given : 
xapitera: would be too present, and in- 
deed prospective (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 53. 1), to suit the actual circumstances ; 
Kexdpiora would express that the effects 
of the xdpicua are remaining, which, 
though probably really the case, less per- 
fectly harmonizes with the language of 
implied exhortation than the simple ref- 
erence to what they once received, and 
must show that they now possess. The 
essential character of the tense (‘ quod 
preteriit, sed ita ut non definiatur quam 
late pateat id quod actum est,’ Fritz. de 
Aor. Vi, p. 17 sq.) may here be easily 
traced. 
is not ‘in Christi negotio,’ Beza (comp. 
Auth.), but is logically dependent on the 
following méoxew, and would have been 
structurally associated with it if the apos- 
tle had not paused to interpolate a clause 
(ob udvoy — bmép adrod) that serves ma- 
terially to heighten the assertion and add 
to its significance: exe? puey dperdérns 
eiul, evratda de dpeiderny exw Tv Xpi0- 
tov, Chrys. So expressly Syr., Alth., 
both of which suppress in translation the 
prefixed rd brép Xp. 

‘80. €xovres] ‘as youhave:’ further 
specification of the preceding mdoxyev, 
with a consolatory turn suggested by the 
associated example; kal 7d mapdderyya 
éxere. médw avtovs émalper, Chrysost. 
The structure is ‘ad sensum’ rather 


To brep Xpiorod 


than ‘ad verbum ;’ the participle being 
constructed with the due?s which is prac- 
tically involved in the preceding verse, 
rather than with the duiv which immedi- 
ately precedes : see especially Eph. iv. 2, 
and notes iz loc. Such relapses of the 
participle into the nominative are far too 
common to render it necessary with Ben- 
gel, Bloomf., and what is more singular, 
Lachm., to enclose 471s —ab’tos méoxew 
in a parenthesis : see examples in Winer, 
Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505, Jelf, Gr. § 707. The 
frequent, and almost idiomatic, occur- 
rence of such anacolutha seems to be re- 
ferrible to the practically weaker force of 
the oblique cases of participles. 

ofov e{Sere] ‘such as gou saw in me,’ 
sc. when I was with you at Philippi; 
compare Acts xvi. 16 sq.: ov« eimev, 
aknkdaTe, GAA, efdeTe Kad yap éxet H2- 
In the ex- 
pression évy €uol the prep. marks as it 
were the substratum of the action; see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, and compare 
notes on Gal. i. 24. There is thus no 
need, with Syr., Aith., to translate the 
second év euo ‘de me’: as the Philip- 
pians saw the &yev when he was present 
with them, so now they hear of it in his 
Epistle, in which he as it were person- 
ally speaks to them; compare Meyer. 
The reading were (Rec., Griesb.), though 
fairly supported [B°D°E°FGKL; very 
many mss.; Theoph., Gicum.|] is appar- 
ently only due to the interchange of « 
and i (itacism); see Scrivener, Collation, 
etc. III. 3, p. LXIX. 


Anoev év SiAlrmos, Chrys. 


Cuaprer II.—1. ef tis obv] ‘If 
then, etc.’ The odv, which has here its 
reflexive rather than collective force, re- 
calls the readers to the consideration of 
what their duty ought to be under exist- 


50 PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 1. 


id 7 / ” | 7 v 4 
Tapayvsvov aydrns, €l Tis Kowwvla IIvevpatos, et twa oTrhayxva 


ing circumstances, with aretrospective ref. 
to the exhortation in ch. i. 27; ‘revocat 
ovv lectorem ad rem preesentem, id est, 
que nunc cum maxime agitur, eodem 
prorsus modo, quo Latina particula 2g- 
tur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717., Be- 
za’s correction of the Vulg., ‘ igitur’ for 
‘ergo,’ is thus judicious. On the exact 
difference between these particles, see 
Hand. Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. 

mapaKar. év Xp.| ‘exhortation in Christ,’ 
7. e. exhortation specified and character- 
ized by being in Him as its sphere and 
element. This important modal adjunct 
defines the mapdxAnois as being essen- 
tially Christian, ‘quam [qualem] dat 
conjunctio cum Christo,’ Wahl; it was 
only ‘in Him’ that its highest nature 
was realizable ; compare notes on Eph. 
iv. 1. TlapdeAnois is apparently here 
‘exhortation’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, Rom. 
xii. 8, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 32), 

o> 

not ‘consolatio,’ Vulg. Theos Syriac 
(compare Goth., Copt.), which, though 
lexically tenable (see Knapp, Script. 
Var. Arg. Vol. 1. p. 132 sq., and comp. 
notes on 1 Thess. vy. 11), seems here 
somewhat tautologous when trapapvdior 
so immediately follows. The 
exact distinction between the clauses is 
worthy of notice: the first (év Xp.) and 
third (Mvedu.), as Meyer observes, cer- 
tainly point to the objective principles of 
Christian life, while the second (dydzns) 
and fourth (omAdyxv. k. oikT.) point to 
the subjective elements: so also Wiesing., 
who, however, somewhat unsatisfacto- 
rily refers the first two members to St. 
Paul, the last two to the Philippians. 
Surely the very terms of the exhortation 
seem to imply that all must be referred 
to the Philippians. It is the hoped- 
for, and indirectly assumed, existence 
of these four elements among his con- 
verts that leads the apostle so pressingly 


to beseech them to fulfil his joy: comp. 
Chrys., who very well illustrates the 
force and meaning of the appeal. 

Tapamvsiov &y.| ‘comfort or consola- 
tion of love ;’ ‘solatium caritatis,’ Vulg., 


2) 
compare Syr. Los5 thsato [loqu- 


utio in cor], Auth. and apparently Copt. ; 
not ‘ winning persuasion,’ Wiesing., —a 
meaning which is defensible (compare 
Plato, Legg. x. p. 880 A, mapayvSiots eb- 
meidns ylyyntoa), but here apparently 
precluded by the parallelism omAdyxva 
kal oixt. in the fourth clause. The gen. 
aydans is the gen, of the source or agent, 
‘comfort such as love supplies;’ see 
Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126. 

kotvwria Ty.| ‘fellowship of the 
Spirit; gen. objecti, communion with, 
participation in the gifts and influence 
of the Holy Spirit; thy petoxhy adrod 
kal Thy peTdAniy Kad hv ayiaCdueda, 
Theoph. on 2 Cor, xiii. 14: so expressly 
Eth., ‘ particeps fuit in Spiritu;” comp. 
Chrys. The gen. at first sight might 
seem a gen. suljecti as above,—a con- 
struction both lexically and grammati- 
cally defensible (compare Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 111. p. 81, 287), but here somewhat 
at variance with the prevailing use and 
reference of xowwvia and xowvwvds (comp. 


1 Corin. i. 9, 2 Pet. i. 4) in passages of — 


this doctrinal aspect; see Meyer on 2 
Cor. xiii. 14, compare Pearson, Creed, 
Vol. 1. p. 419 (edit. Burton), and the 
good sermon of Waterland, Works, Vol. 
v. p. 351. The Spirit here is not the 
human spirit, ‘animorum conjunctio,’ 
Tirin. (Pol. Syn.), De W.., al., but the 
personal Holy Spirit, as the parallelism 
to the first clause, and the recurrence of 
the expression in 2 Cor. xiii. 14, seem 
very distinctly to suggest. So AXthiop. 
(Polygl., but not Platt), which expressly 
inserts &y:os* ef TLi\va OTA. 
k. T.A.] ‘if any bowels (heartfelt love) and 





Crap. II. 2. 


PHIBIPRIANS: 


51 


\ . 4 2 / , \ / (ca Ni LN a 
kal viktippol, * mAnpwoaTé ov TV Yapdy, va TO avTO hpovijre, 
THY avTHY aydTnY ExoVTES, aUINpuxoL TO EV hpovodvTes, * wndEev 


compassions.’ By comparing James v. 
11, and especially Col. iii. 12, orAdyxva 
oixtipuod, it would seem that there is 
some distinction between the two words, 
and that the latter is not a mere expla- 
nation of the former (Zanch.). That ad- 
vanced by Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 69) 
seems satisfactory, ‘omA. amorem vehe- 
mentiorem quemcunque denotat (a7op- 
yhv, compare Philem, 12) ; oikr. miseri- 
cordiam proprie denotat, seu sensum do- 
loris ex malis seu incommodis aliorum ;’ 
compare Grot. in loc. It is somewhat 
singular that all the uncial MSS. includ- 
ing x, at least 50 mss., and several Ff. 
read ef tis omA. Though adopted by 
Tisch. (ed. 7) and Lachm., and defended 
by Green, Gram. p. 284, it seems really 
to have arisen from an erroncous (para- 
diplomatic) repetition of the preceding 
mis. The prevalence of such an appar- 
ent error need not shake our faith in mere 
MSS. testimony (Alf.) ; it rather seems 
to hint at the general fidelity of the tran- 
seribers. They could scarcely have all 
made the same error; but may very 
probably have studiously perpetuated it 
on the authority of two or three more an- 
cient documents. Tivé& is found in Clem. 
Alex. Strom. tv. p. 604 (ed. Pott.). 

2. rAnpdcare| ‘fulfil,’ ‘make com- 
plete;’ ov« etme movhoaré wot, GAAG, TAD- 
pbcate’ rolreotiv ipkacde putevew ev 
euol” %5n por peteddnate 7d eipnvevew, 
GAN cis TéAos emiduus eASeiv, Chrys. 
The position of wou before xapay does 
not seem intended to convey any empha- 
sis; see the long list of similar examples 
in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7.1, p. 140 (ed. 6). 
iva rd avrd k.7.A.] ‘that so ye be 
likeminded.’ The particle iva does not 
here denote simple purpose (Meyer), —a 
forced and unsatisfactory interpretation 
which ignores the usage, of later Greek 
and the analogy of the modern vd (see 


Corpe, Gr. p. 129 sq.),—but, with a 
weakened force, blends the subject of the 
entreaty, ete., with the purpose of mak- 
ing it: so rightly Chrys., tt BolAc ; iva 
ce Kwobvwy dradAdkwmev, iva ool Te xopn- 
yhowuev; Ovdev tovtwy yoy, arr’, iva 
duets TO adTd ppov7te. See notes on Lph 
i. 17, where this and other uses of fva are 
bricfly investigated. Van Heng. refers 
iva to an omitted ratbrny, sc. xapay Tab- 
Thy va k. T. A.: this seems very unsatis- 
factory. Td avtd dpoy. is 
rightly explained by Tittmann (Synon. 
p- 67) as, ‘eandem sententiam habere, 
idem sentire, velle et querere,’ while the 
following participial clauses, thy avrhy 
ay. éx. and cmp. 7b ev pp., more nearly 
define its essence and characteristics. 
See Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 111. p. 87, 
who however does not appear quite ex- 
act in separating cum. from 7d ev poy. ; 
see below. THY GUTNY AY. 
€x.] ‘having the same love ;’ closer defi- 
nition of rd aiTd ppovety : eat) yap cad Td 
alTd ppovety Kal ur aydany exew, Chrys. 
The true nature of such love is well de- 
fined by the same able commentator as 
duolws Kad pidety kad Pidcioda. On the 
nature of Christian love as delineated in 
St. Paul’s Epistles, the most summary 
and comprehensive definition of which 
is in ver. 4, see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 
242 sq., Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 19, Vol. 
II. p. 203 sq. otyvpuxot 
K.T.A.] ‘with accordant souls minding 
(the) one thing ;’ second declining clause, 
and parallel to rhy abt. ay. éx. Most of 
the ancient Vv. (Syr., Copt., Ath., al.), 
apparently the Greek expositors, and 
several modern .commentators regard 
obvivxor and 7d éy pp. as separate predi- 
cations; it seems however best, with 
Meyer, to regard them as united, the 
slightly emphatic odmp. forming a quasi- 
adverbial or secondary predication to 7d 


rn 


52 PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 3, 4. 


Kata épieiay pndé Kata Kevoooflay, adda TH TaTrewoppoctvy 


? , ¢e , e L € La) 4 \ Aye ia) 4 
AXANAOUS NYOU{MLEVOL UTEPEXOVTAS EAUTMV, * [1] TA EAVTWY EKATTOL 


év op. There is thus no necessity for 
any artificial distinctions between 7d aird 
gp. and 7d év gp. (Tittmann Synonym. 
1. p. 69), nor for the assumption of a 
studied tautology (comp. Chrys.) : odv- 
wuxor serves to illustrate the participial 
clause with which it is associated, while 
7 éy gp. remands the reader to the 7d 
aid op. above, with which it is practi- 
cally synonymous, and of which it is 
possibly a more abstract expression; 
compare Green, Gram. p. 201. Middle- 
ton (Gr. Art. p. 368) following Grotius 
refers this latter clause to what follows : 
this is not satisfactory, and mars the 
symmetry of the sentence. On the dis- 
tinction between civuxos and isdWuxos, 
see notes on ver. 20. 

3. wndéy Kata éprd.] ‘ meditating 
nothing in the way of dissension, or conten- 
trousness ;’ not moodvtes, V. Heng., Scho- 
lef. (Hints, p. 105), or still worse mrotetre, 
Luth., but simply dpovotyres, continued 
from the preceding verse; see Winer, 
Gr. § 64. 2, p. 618. The prep. kara pri- 
marily denotes the model or rule, and 
thence, as here, by a very intelligible 
gradation, the occasion or circumstances 
in accordance with it; see notes on Tit. 
iii. 5, and Winer, Gram. § 49. d, p. 358. 
On épidela see notes on ch. i. 17, and on 
Gal. v. 17; compare too Theophyl. i 
loc., who appears to have caught the true 
force and meaning of the word ; orovdd- 
oat 2xw, va uh me vixhon 6 Betva’ TovTo 
Zor % épisela. MndE KaTG 
kevodokiayv] ‘nor inthe way of vain- 
glory” Kevod. an ar. Aeyéu. in the N. T. 
(adj. Gal. vy. 26) is sufficiently defined 
by Suidas as, patala tis wep) Eavtov of- 
nows ; compare Polyb. Hist. 111. 81. 9, x. 
33.6. The reading is here very doubt- 
ful, that adopted in the text [ABC; 
Vulg., Clarom., Sang., Syr. (?) Copt., 
Z8th. (2); Lachm., Tisch.], though not 


free from suspicion, has the greatest 
amount of external evidence, and seems 
on the whole the most probable and sat- 
isfactory. Th Tamwervog- 
pootyn| ‘with, under the influence of 
(due) lowliness;’ modal dative (comp. 
notes on ch. i. 18), or perhaps more pre- 
cisely dat. of the subjective cause, thus 
falling under the general head of the 
‘dynamic’ dative, see Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 48.15.5. On this causal dative, which 
though allied to, must not be confounded 
with, the instrumental dat. (as appar- 
ently Mey., Alf.), see Bernhardy, Synt. 
111. 14, p. 101, sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. 
ce, p. 181, and Kriiger, 7.c. The article 
here prefixed to the abstract tasewwodp. 
may have its collective force (Jelf, Gr. 
§ 448) and mark ‘lowliness’ in its most 
abstract form, ‘ the virtue of lowliness ” 
(Mey., comp. Middl. Gram. Art. p. 90); 
but more probably only characterizes the 
Tamew. as that due and befitting lowliness 
by which each ought to be influenced : 
comp. Rom. xii. 10 sq., and Fritz. in loc. 
On tamewodpootvn, ‘the thinking lowly 
of ourselves because we are so,’ and its 
distinction from mpairns, see notes on 
Eph. iv. 2. Trench, Synon. § 42, and the 
more spiritually profound discussion of 
Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 483 sq. 
(Bohn). bmwepéexovTas 
éauvt@v] ‘superior to themselves ;? com- 
pare Rom. xii. 10, Ephes. v. 21, 1 Pet. 
vy. 5. The query of Calvin, how those 
who really and obviously excel others in 
certain points can conform to this pre- 
cept, is satisfactorily answered by con- 
sidering the true nature of taeivogp. 
The rarewdéppwr is one so conscious of 
his dependence on God, and of his own 
imperfections and nothingness, that his 
own gifts only remind him that others 
must have gifts also, while his sense of 
his own utter nothingness suggests to 


‘ 





a EE PP ANS. 


Cuap. Il. 5. 53 


oKoTrobVTES, GANA Kal Ta EvTEpwv ExacToL. * Todto yap dpoveire 


5. yap] So Rec¥ and now Tisch. (ed. 7) with DEFGJK; very many Vv.; Gr. 
and Lat. Ff. (Griesb., but om. om.; Van Heng., Mey., Alf.). The particle is omit- 
ted by Lachm. with ABCN; 17.37; Coptic, Arm., Eth.; Origen, Ath., al. , As 
verse 5 begins an ecclesiastical lection, and as the explicative force of the yap might 
not have been fully understood, and have led to the omission of the particle, the 
reading of the text seems s/ightly more probable. 

gpoveire] So ABCIDEFG®; 3 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syriac, 2th. (Pol. and 
Platt); Cyr.; Lat. Ff. (Zachm., Mey.). The reading of Tisch. (ed. 2,7), ppoveicda, 
with C?KL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Goth., al.; Orig., Ath. (Rec., Alf), is insuffi- 
ciently attested by uncial authorities, and, on internal grounds, quite as likely to 
have been a correction of povetre (to harmonize with 6 kal év Xp. Ino.) as vice 
versa: compare contra, Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 49 note, whose judgment, however, 


seems here hasty and ill-supported. 
Tisch, (ed. 1). 


him that these gifts may well be supe- 
rior to his own, and higher in nature and 
degree : see especially Neander, Plant- 
ing, Vol. 1. p. 485 (Bohn). 

4.7a éavtayv oxém.] ‘regarding, 
looking to their own interests:’ warning 
against a selfish regard for themselves, 
following suitably on the exhortation to 
Tamewoppoctyn. Pride, as Miiller well 
observes, is the most naked form of self- 
ishness: see the excellent remarks on 
selfishness as the essence of sin, and as 
specially developing itself in pride and 
hatred, ib. Doctr. of Sin. 1.3. 1 and 2, 
especially Vol. 1. p. 175 sq. (Clark). 
Sxoreiy is here scarcely different in sense 
from (nreiv, ch. ii. 21, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, 
xiii. 5; compare 2 Mace. iv. 5, 7d cdy- 
gpepov cxor@v. Numerous examples of 
similar forms of expression will be found 
in Wetstein in /oc., the most pertinent of 
which is from a writer whose diction is 
said often to reflect that of St. Paul, 
Plotin. Enn. 1. 4.8, ob 7d éxetvwy @rt oKo- 
Toupevov, dAAG Td EavTdv. The reading 
of Rec., Exaoros (with CDOEKLN; al.)— 
oxoreite (with L; al.) is rightly rejected 
by Lachmann, Tisch., and most modern 
commentators: it may, however, be re- 
marked that in all other cases in the 
N. T. (Rey. vi. 11 [Mec.], is more than 


We return, then, to the reading of Zachm. and 


doubtful) éxacros is only found in the 
singular. GAAG Kal] ‘but 
also :’ a somewhat weakened form of the 
adversative clause, the cat perhaps point- 
ing to the thought that it was natural 
that a man should look after his own in- 
terests ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p. 441 
sq., Fritz. Marc. exc. 11. p. 788. On. 
the difference between ov«—daaAdAd, ob 
pdvoyv —GAAd, and od pdvov —GAA& kal, 
see the acute remarks of Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 9. It is, perhaps, scarcely 
necessary to controvert the position of 
Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 503), that r& 
éauta@y are ‘sua dona;’ such an inter- 
pretation is less in harmony with the 
context, and would tend to make «al ap- 
pear redundant. What the apostle con- 
demns is not so much a reasonable re- 
gard for their own interests as the selfish 
exhibition of it; comp. Waterl. Serm. v. 
Vol. 11. p. 503. 

5. yap has here its explanatory force, 
‘verily,’ ‘as the case stands,’ and serves 
both to illustrate and confirm the preced- 
ing exhortation ; see especially notes on 
Gal. ii. 6, where this use of yap is briefly 
illustrated. ppoveire év 
btv] ‘entertain this mind in yourselves,’ 
se. ‘in animis vestris,’ Van H., not ‘intra 
vestrum ccetum,’ a construction which 


54 PRILIPPIANS . 


év vpiv 6 Kat év Xpiot@ "Inood, ° 


seems distinctly precluded by the follow- 
ing €v Xp. Meyer compares the Homeric 
ev) ppeci, ev) Suus, thus similarly com- 
bined with gpoveiv, Jil. xx1v.173, Odys. 
XIv. 82, al. ® kal év X.71.] 
‘which was also in Christ Jesus, se. ép- 
poveiro or eppovndyn. ‘The kal is not 
‘cum maxime,’ Van. Heng., but simply 
correlative, indicating the identity of the 
disposition that is to be between the Phi- 
lippians and Christ (Wies.) : on the in- 
sertion of «at after relative particles, and 
the form of comparison it indicates, see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. The in- 
terpretation of Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. 
I. p. 180), according to which 6 is to be 
referred to gpoveiv, not eppovndn, scil. 
‘welches ein @poveiy in ihnen selbst nicht 
ist, ohne auch in Christo Jesu’ (compare 
Gal. ii. 20), seems artificial and unsatis- 
factory. 

6. Ss] In this important, and it is to 
be feared much perverted passage, nearly 
every word has formed the subject of 
controversy. In no portion of Scripture 
is it more necessary to follow the simple 
and plain grammatical meaning of the 
words. The first question is, to what 
does 6s refer? To Christ as (a) the 
Aéyos %capkos, Christ in his pre-incarnate 
‘state (Chrys. and majority of Ff.), or, 
as (b) the Adyos évcapkos, — what is now 
usually, but not very reverently, termed 
the ‘historical Christ’ (Novation, De 
W., al.)? The true answer seems, — 
to neither exclusively, but, as the appro- 
priately chosen antecedent (Xp. Inc.) 
suggests, and the profound nature of the 
subject requires, to (a) AND (b), to the 
TéAewos Tids (Hyppolyt. ap. Routh, Opuse. 
Vol. 1. p. 73) in either form of His eter- 
nal existence ; it being left to the imme- 
diate context to define the more imme- 
diate reference ; compare Col. i. 13, 15, 
and see Thomasius, Christi Person, Vol. 
11, p- 136. In the present verse the ref- 


Cuap. IL. 6. 
a 3 ied reteys 4 / > 
Os &V popghy Ocod vrdpyav ovy 


erence seems disiniy 10 (a); for as the 
tertiwn comparationis is manifestly rame- 
voppootvn, so this cannot be completely 
evinced in the case of Christ, unless His 
prior state be put in clear contrast with 
that to which He was pleased to conde- 
scend ; compare 2 Cor, viii. 9, where, 
while “Ino. Xp. is similarly the subject, 


TAovotos &y can scarcely admit any other 


reference than to Christ’s pre-incarnate 
state; so even Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 4, p. 
295. In verses 8-12 the reference is 
as obviously to @): the Adyos ucapxos, 
which is the more immediate subject of 
verse 6, passes into the Aéyos @ycapxos in 
ver. 7, and as the slight break in the con- 
tinuity of the sentence, cal oxhmari K.T.A., 
fittingly and significantly indicates, re- 
mains so to the end of the clause. Other 
opinions, especially that of Origen, will 
be found in the admirable sermon of Wa- 
terl. (Works, Vol. 11. p. 109), in which 
the whole passage is very clearly dis- 
cussed. See also Pearson, Creed, Art. 
11. Vol. 1. p. 155, Bull, Prim. Trad. vr. 
21, Jackson, Creed, Book viz. 1, Tho- 
masius, Chr. Pers. Vol. 11. p. 136 sq. 
Reference to the older monographs ‘on 
this subject will be found in Wolf én Joc., 
and to the more recent in Meyer in doc. 

év wopoh Oeod bmrdp.| ‘ subsisting in 
the form of God,’ ‘iivstandend u. s. w.,’ 
Thomasius, /.c., scil. from all eternity, 
in reference to His pre-incarnate exist- 
ence, the participle not having so much 
a causal (‘ inasmuch as he was’) as a con- 
cessive reference, ‘although he was,’ a 
sufficiently common solution of the par- 
ticiple; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. The 
use of drdpxwy, not &y, is especially no- 
ticeable. In the following words, pop) 
©cov, there is but little difficulty, if we 
adhere simply and honestly to the true 
lexical meaning of wopph, and properly at- 
tend to the subsequent antithesis. With 
respect to wopp4 [probably derived from 





Cuap. II. 6. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


59 


e \ € , \ > yw A A vi BJ \ e \ oe 4 
apTaywov nyNTaTO TO ElvaL Loa ew, "ene EKEVOOED 


the Sanser. Vurpas, ‘form,’ comp. Ben- 
fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 309], we may 
first observe, that it is not perfectly iden- 
tical with dois or ovata (Chrysost., al., 
Jackson, /. c.), being in fact one of its 
two essential elements (see especially 
Aristot. de Animd, 11. 1), but designates 
‘form,’ ‘appearance’ (/Eth.), ‘likeness’ 
(Syr.), and may be compared with eixéy, 
Col. i. 15, and xapaxthp ris broordcews, 
Heb. i. 3; compare Thomasius, /. ¢., p. 
137. As, however, both these allied ex- 
pressions stand in connection with a ref- 
erence to the eternal Sonship (Waterl. 
l.c.), as opp) Ocod stands in distinct 
and undeniable antithesis to popphy Sob- 
Aov (Bull, /. c.), and as this latter expres- 
sion is referred by the apostle himself to 
the assumption of human nature, so no 
candid man can doubt that both ante- 
Nicene and post-Nicene writers were 
right in their deduction that pop) @cov 
has reference to the divine nature, and 
does express as much as @eds éx Ocov 
(Hippol. Vol. 11. p. 29, ed. Fabr.) and 
vids Ocod (Dionys.-Alexan. apud. Labb. 
Vol. 1. p. 853), and hence, what is truly 
and essentially divine; see esp. Waterl. 
Serm. v. Vol. 11. p. 103 sq. 

ovX apmaybudy K.7.A.] ‘Hedid not 
deem His being on an equality with God a 
thing to be seized on, or to grasp at.’ On 
this important clause we must premise 
the following remarks: (1) the slightly 
emphatic apruyyudy is the predicate, and 
7d civat x. T. A., the immediate object to 
nynearo, see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 289; 
(2) the word apm., if considered apart 
from the context, does not seem merely = 
dprayua or aprdymoy (Callim. Hymn. 
Cer. 9), but, with the usual force of its 
termination (Donaldson, Cratyl. § 253), 
would seem to denote ‘the act of seiz- 
‘ing ;’ compare Plut. (?) de Educ. p. 120 
A, Tov éx Kpnrys Kadotmevoy apmaypudy ; 
(3) toa is used adverbially (Winer, Gr. 


§ 27. 3, p. 160), exew tows Oew, ‘ equal- 
iter Deo esse,’ Thomas., J. c, p. 140, and 
that no stress can be laid on such an use 
(‘spectari tanquam Deum,’ Grot.), as 
the whole force of the assertion of equal- 
ity lies in the use of the verb. subst., 7d 
eivat; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 88, 
ed. Burton; (4) ev woppn Ocod bmdpy. 
and 7d eva: oa Oce are virtually, though 
not precisely, identical. Both refer to 
the Divine Nature ; the former, however 
(perhaps with a momentary glance of 
thought to its dvAla), points to it in re- 
spect of its form and pre-eristence ; the 
latter, with exquisite distinction, to its 
state and present continuance, referring the 
reader, as it were, to the very moment of 
the nyfcaTo. On these prem- 
ises the translation would be, —(a) He 
thought the being equal to God no act of 
ro’bery, —no usurpation of any dignity 
which was not His own by right of na- 
ture (Jackson, Creed, vit1. 1); ‘non 
rapinam existimavit pariari Deo,’ Ter- 
tullian, see Waterl., J. c., p. 107 sq.: so 


° > 
appy- Syr. fun Onda [direptio], Vulg. 
‘rapinam,’ Goth. ‘ vulva,’ and perhaps 
Copt. ‘hélem’ (but appy.—éapray px a Lev. 
vi. 4), Authoriz., and many of the older 
commentators. To this, however, tho 
logical consideration that a condition 
cannot properly be regarded an act (com- 
pare Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 131), 
and the still graver contextual considera- 
tions, — (a) that the above rendering of 
apm. hyho. not only affords no exempli- 
fication of wh Ta eauTdv oKor. (ver. 4) 
but really implies the very reverse; (8) 
that the antithesis oty 7yhao.— GAAd exer. 
is thus wholly destroyed (see below), — 
present objections so serious, and appar- 
ently insurmountable, that we seem jus- 
tified in reconsidering (2), and in assign. 
ing to the rare word aprayubs a meaning 
approaching that of the verbal in -ras 


56 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 7. 


popdyy SovrAov AaBdv, ev spordpatse avSparwv yevopevos, 


(Hesiod, Op. 320) or the substant. in -ua 

[consider Seouds, xpnouds, and permuta- 
tions of -ua and -wos, such as, Siwyya, ou- 
wyu.os|, so that the phrase may be consid- 
' ered closely allied to &pmayya jryeiodat 
(Heliod. th. v11. 20) and the similar 
expressions pm. moteiodat, Huseb. Const. 
Il. 81, dpra Séoda, Euseb. Hist. vit. 
12; compare apmadéa déo1s, Pind. Pyth. 
Vill. 65, and see especially Donalds. in 
loc. The meaning then will be (b) He 
did not deem the being on an equality with 
God a thing to be seized on, a state to be 
exclusively (so to speak) clutched at, 
and retained as a prize; the expression 
ovx apr. jy. being perhaps studiedly 
used rather than ovx jjpmace, /Uth., ‘ut 
sententiam etiam graviorem redderet, et 
Christum de illo ne cogitasse quidem sig- 
nificaret,’ Rabiger, in Thomas. Christ. 
Pers, Vol. 11. p. 139: so in effect Theod- 
oret (ov wéya TodTo bméAaBe), and, with 
some yariations in detail, Van Heng., 
De W., Wiesing., and the majority of 
modern commentators, except Meyer 
and Alford), who adopt a quasi-active 
meaning (‘ein Verhaltniss des Beutema- 
chens,’ ‘ self-enrichment’) but somewhat 
confuse the exegesis. The fuller justifi- 
eation of (b) will appear in the following 
note. 

7. AAG EauTdy exév.] ‘but emp- 
tied Himself ;’ ‘He retained not his equal- 
ity with God, but on the contrary emp- 
tied Himself, — Himself, with slight em- 
phasis, divine as He was in nature and 
prerogatives.’ The real difficulties of 
this passage are brought into clear prom- 
inence by this adversative clause We 
have here two lines of interpretation, 
perfectly and plainly distinct. (1) If, on 
the one hand, we adopt (a), the first in- 
terpretation mentioned ver. 6, then bidp- 
xwv will be causal, ox apr. jy. will re- 
fer to the preceding account of Christ’s 
greatness (Waterland, /. c., p. 110), and 


apm. will more nearly preserve its appar- 
ent lexical meaning, but aAA& will have 
to be regarded as equivalent to GAA’ Buws 
(Waterl., p. 108), and the antithesis as 
one between whole members, not, as the 
context seems imperatively to demand, 
between conterminous clauses; ‘ He 
thought the being equal to God no usurpa- 
tion; yet He emptied Himself ;’ so ex- 
pressly Waterland, and, as far as we can 
infer from renderings almost perplex- 
ingly literal, Auth., and the principal 
ancient Vy., except ith. (2) If, on 
the other hand, we adopt (2) as above, 
then — irapx. will be concessive, ovx 
apm. yy. will refer to the consequent ac- 
count of Christ’s humiliation, preserving . 
an exact parallelism to mi) 7a éavTdy 
cxor., apm. will recede further from its 
lexical meaning, but aAAd will retain its 
usual, proper, and logical force after the 
negative clause (‘aliud jam hoc esse de 
quo sumus ‘dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
11. 2), and the sentence will be even, con- 
tinuous, and in fullest contextual har- 
mony : ‘ He did not deem His equality to 
God a prize to be seized, but, etc.;’ in 
other words,—‘ He did not insist on 
His own eternal prerogatives, but, on the 
contrary, humbled Himself to the condi- 
tion and sufferings of mortal man.’ Of 
these two interpretations while (1) pre- 
serves more nearly the primary lexical 
meaning of apmayuds, it so unduly ex- 
pands that of aAAd, and so completely 
mars the regular antithesis (od«— add), 
that we seem bound to adopt confidently 
and unhesitatingly the latter interpreta- 
tion : see especially Waterland (/.¢., p. 
110), who while adopting (1) shows 
clearly that (2) isa sound and catholic 
interpretation : compare Middleton, Gr. 
Art. p. 870, Browne, Articles, 1. 2, p. 41, 
neither of whom, however, seems to have 
felt sufficiently the lexical difficulty con- 
nected with apmrayyds. All 


Cuap. Il. 8. 


PHILTPPIANS: 


oT 


rn \ d r € eae ? t ¢ , , 
Kat XNLaTEL EUpe sels @S avS pw7ros ETAT ELYMOEV EAUTOD, YEVOMEVOS 


arcempts to preserve both the exact mean- 
ing of apw. and the regular grammatical 
‘ wequence (Meyer, and apparently Alf.), 
in fact to combine (1) and (2), seem 
hopeless: the two translations are fun- 
damentally distinct, and most of the con- 
fused interpretations of this passage are 
owing to this distinction and this incom- 
patibility not having been seen and rec- 
ognized. It is fair to add that of these 
attempts, the most plausible is the as- 
sumed coherence of the negative with 
aprayudy (=‘non-rapinam ’), but to this 
the form and balance of the sentence, — 
the appearance of ov with an aorist in 
the first member, followed by aAAa with 
a responsive aor. in the second member, 
—seems, as before, to present a gram- 
matical objection that remains in all its 
fullest validity. Lastly, it is not 
correct to say (De Wette) that 7d eivat 
x. 7.A. must refer to something Christ 
did not possess: surely it is logically ac- 
curate to say, that Christ did not seize 
for Himself, and covet to retain a state 
that was then his own. Even though 
such phrases as toy Sdvatoy apmayua Sé- 
wevot (Euseb. Hist. vi11. 12) may be 
found, would it be necessarily incorrect 
to say of a patriot, odx Gp. (or apm.), 
hryhoato tov Ploy GAN’ eiAeTo Toy Sdva- 
Tov? éauToy éxévwoer| 
‘emptied Himself, not metaphorically, 
‘humiliavit,’ A&th., but according to the 
simple and lexical meaning of the word 
(compare Xenoph. CEcon. vi11. 7, al.), 


“exinanivit,’ Vulg., Claroman. ; Fa) 
w 4 


[inane reddidit] Syriac, ‘ effluere fecit,’ 
Copt.; compare ‘ us-lausida,’ Goth. Of 
what did He empty Himself? Not ex- 
actly of the popph) Ocod (Mey., Alf.) un- 
less understood in a sense different to 
that which it inferentially has in the pre- 
ceding clause, for, as Waterl. truly says, 
‘He had the same essential glory, the 
8 


same real dignity He ever had’ (uévwy 
’ fv, fAaBey 3 vd« jv (Chrys.), but, as 
the following clause more expressly 
shows, of that which he had in that form 
(comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 158), 
that Godlike majesty and visible glories 
(comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 34) which 
He had from all eternity: thy dtlay ka- 
Taxpipas Thy aKpay Tamewoppocivyy et- 
Aero, Theodoret. The military meta- 
phor which Krebs ( Obs. p. 329) finds in 
kevody and even in apr. 7yho., seems 
doubtful in the highest degree. 

hopoynyv SovArAov AaBer| ‘taking, or 
by taking, the form of a servant ;’ the ac- 
tion of the aor. part. being synchronous 
with that of the finite verb (see Bernhard., 
Synt. x. 9, p- 383, notes on Eph. i. 9), 
and serving more fully to explain it: ‘si 
queris quomodo Christus seipsum exi- 
nanivit? Respondet apostolus, servi for- 
mam accipiens,’ Bull, Prim. Trad. vt. 
20. The choice of the term SovAov, as 
the same great writer ably observes, has 
no reference to any servilis conditio (‘ mi- 
seram sortem,’ Heinr.), but is suggested 
only by the preceding antithesis poppf 
@covd, and marks the relation which our 
Lord assumed towards God; ‘ad Deum 
autem comparata creatura omnis servi 
formam habet, Deique ad obedientiam 
obstricta tenetur,’ ib. § 20. 

év duotdmatt x. 7.A.] ‘being made 
in the likeness of men ;’ modal clause sub- 
ordinated to the preceding:—‘if any 
man doubt how Christ emptied Himself, 
the text will satisfy him, by taking the 
form of a servant; if any still question 
how he took the form of a servant, he 
hath the apostle’s resolution by being 
made in the likeness of men,’ Pearson, 
Creed, Vol. 1. p. 157 (ed. Burton). The 
expression év duo. is very noticeable ; 
Christ though perfect man was still not 
a mere man, a.YAds &vIpwmos, but was 
6 Adyos a&pt yevduevos; compare ‘The- 


58 PHILP PLANS: 


Cuar. II. 8, 9. 


dmHKO0S expt Yavdtou, Yavatov 5é ctavpovd. * 810 Kal 6 Ocds avrov 


ophylact zn loc., and Fritz. Rom. viii. 3, 
Vol. 11. p.97. Lastly, yiveoda: does not 
here imply merely ‘to be born,’ but, as 
the context requires, with a greater lati- 
tude of meaning, ‘apparere,’ ‘in con- 
spectum venire,’ Kiihner on Xenophon 
Mem. 111. 3. 6 (Meyer), while év is used 
with a quasi-local force to mark the en- 
yelope or environment; see Bernhardy, 
Synt. v. 7, p. 209. 

8. kal oxHmaTt K.T.A.] ‘and be- 
ing found in fashion as a man, ete.; da- 
tive of reference, Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 
193, and notes on Gal. i. 22; ov todto 
A€ywy, bt} Piows meTemerey OvdE GUYXU- 
gis Tis éyéveTo, GAAG oXhmaTe eyéveTo, 
Chrys. This clause is connected by De 
Wette, Meyer, Yisch. (ed. 2, 7), and 
others closely with what precedes, a stop 
being placed after &vSpwmos, and éramet- 
vecev being left, without any connecting 
particle, to commence the next clause: 
so also Copt., and probably Syr. and 
JEth. To such a punctuation there are 
two grave objections. On theone hand, 
such an abrupt separation in a group of 
clauses which have a close logical and 
historical coherence is improbable, and 
apparently unprecedented (the examples 
cited by De Wette, Gal. iii. 13, v. 25, 
2 Cor. v. 21, are not in point): on the 
other, as was hinted above on ver. 6, the 
slight break, combined with the some- 
what peculiar cipedels harmonize admi- 
rably with the change of subject, and indi- 
cate the transition from the pre-incarnate 
glory to the incarnate humiliation and 
post-incarnate exaltation of the Eternal 
Son: so it would seem, expressly, Chrys. 
Hom. vit. 4, init. Eépedets is thus not 
for év, butj.as always, implies that He 
was found, manifested, acknowledged, to 
be; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and Winer, 
Gram. § 64.8, p. 542 sq. On oxjjua, 
which, as its derivation [yw] clearly 
hints, is not = duofwua, Heinr., but de- 


notes the habitus, ‘outward guise, de- 
meanor, and manner of life’ (oixérov 
oXijua mepiédnne, Lucian, Necyom. § 16, 
oXijua ppuvyaviotipos AaBdv, Polyzen. 
Strategem. 1. p. 37 [Wetst.]), and its dis- 
tinction from the more ‘intrinsic’ and 
‘essential poppy,’ see Journ. Class. Phil. 
No. vir. p. 115 sq.; compare notes on 
2 Tim. iii. 5. &s tvspwros| 
‘asa man;’ though a perfect man, yet 
not a mere man; jets yap Wux} Kab 
Toya’ exetvos Beds, kal Wux7y, Kal cOpa, 


‘Chrys., who, however, would have ex- 


pressed himself with more psychological 
exactness if, in both clauses for wuxf, 
he had written wvetua kal Wuxh; comp. 
Luke xxiii. 26, and Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- 
chol. v.1, p. 288 sq. 

éramweivwoev| ‘humbled Himself:’ 
not éavrby eram., the emphasis resting 
rather on the act, than, as before (éaur. 
exév.) on the subject. °Erazety. is clearly 
not synonymous with éxév. (Rheinw.), 
but refers to the acts of condescension 
and humiliation in that human nature 
which He emptied Himself to assume: 
‘non solum, cum Deus esset, naturam 
assumpsit humanam, verum in ea se ve- 
hementer humiliayit et dejecit,’ Bull, 
Prim. Trad. v1. 21. On the meaning of 
tamewds [allied with tds, and not im- 
probably derived from a root STATI— 
‘press,’ ‘tread,’ compare Benfey, Wur- 
zellex. Vol. 1. p. 656] in Christian writers 
in contradistinction to heathen (by whom 
it is commonly used in a bad sense, e. g. 
Tamew) Kal dverevSepos, Plato, Legg. 1v. 
p. 774 c.), see Trench, Synon. § 42. 
yevomevos K.T.A.| ‘by becoming obedi- 
ent even to death;’ modal clause ap- 
pended to and explaining érameivwoer ; 
the supplementary words péyxpt k. 7. A. 
not belonging to the finite verb (Beng., 
Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 80), but, 
as the explanatory nature of the parti- 
cipial clause and the even flow of the 


ee 


Cuap. II. 9. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


59 


¢ , ne , We Ci Sok Ni ee kiN os 
uTreputrwoev Kat EX aAPlLOaTO AUT® OVOKLaAa TO UTrep TAV OVOLMA, 


sentence clearly require, —.to yevduevos 
imnjx. The iraxo) here mentioned was 
not that shown to His earthly parents 
(Zanch.), or to Jews and Romans (Gro- 
tius), but, as the following verse seems 
distinctly to indicate, to God; compare 
Matth. xxvi. 89, Rom. v. 19, Heb. v. 8. 
The meaning of the term cannot fairly 
be pressed, e.g. tmhkovoey ds vids, ovx 
&s SovAos, Theod., for see Rom. vi. 16, 
Col. iii. 22. As the derivation suggests, 
iahKoos and smaxovew involve the idea of 
‘dicto obtemperare ;’? mefSeodat is rather 
‘monitasequi,’ me:Sapxeiy ‘coactus obse- 
qui;’ see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 193, and 
notes on Tit. iii. 1. On the apparent 
futility of distinctions between péxpr 
(here not of time but degree) and a&xpu, 
see on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 

Savdrov S& at.| ‘yea death on the 
cross ;” not only death, but a death of 
suffering, shameful and accursed : ofros 
yap [6 Sdvatos| mdvTwy émovedioriKdTe- 
pos eivor €d0xet, oTos 6 aicxiyns yéeuwy, 
ovTos 6 émdparos, Chrys. On the use of 
d¢ in repetition, in which however the 
original oppositive force may just faintly 
be traced (‘ similis notio quodam modo 
opponitur’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p. 861, Hartung, Partik. d€, 2. 7, Vol. 1. 
p- 168; and on the genitive (of ‘more 
remote relation’), see exx. in Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168. 

9. 84 «al] * On which account also ;’ 
‘in consequence of this condescension 
and humiliation on the part of Christ 
God also, etc. ;’ the xa) not being merely 
consecutive (De W., Mey.), but stand- 
ing in connection with émepiy., and serv- 
ing to place in gentle contrast the conse- 
quent exaltation with the previous tazre(- 
vwois; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, 
and notes on ch. iv. 12. The meaning 
of 8:4, ‘quo facto’ (comp. Wolf, al.), 
adopted only, it is to be feared, from 
dogmatical reasons, is distinctly untena- 


ble in grammar, and by no means neces- 
sary in point of theology ; ‘ God,’ as Bp. 
Andrewes says, ‘not only raised Him, 
but, propter hoc, even “ for that cause” 
exalted Him also to live with Him in 
glory for ever, Serm. 1. Vol. 11. p. 197, 
ab., p. 325: bray tis capkds émAdBnrae 
6 pakdpios TladAos mdvta Aoiwdy Te Ta- 
mewe meTa adelas Pdéyyerat, Chrysost. in 
On the humiliation of the Eternal 
Son see especially Jackson, Creed, vr1t. 
1, 2, and on the nature and degree of His 
exaltation, Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. 1. 
p. 822 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 

avtov imeptpwoer| ‘highly exalted 


Him ;? CLD gO} nw, [multum 
exaltayit eum] Syr.; compare Psalm 
xevi. 9, cpddpa trepupddns bwtp mdvras 
Tovs deovs, Dan. iv. 34. The dép is not 
here temporal, nor even local, though the 
reference is obviously to the Ascension 
(Eph. iv. 10) and elevation at the right 
hand of God, but ethical, —‘ dignitate 
atque imperio supra omnes,’ Zanch., 
‘insigniter extulit,’ Just. : so Athiopic, 
Copt. On St. Paul’s favorite use of 
jmép and its compounds, see notes on 


loc. 


Eph. iii. 20. The exact ae of this 


exaltation is well discussed in Waterl. 
Serm. 11. Vol. 11. p. 112; it is to be 
doubted, however, whether, as Waterl. 
maintains, the reference is specially to 
Christ as Son of God, and to ‘ an exalta- 
tion relutive to us, by a new and real title, 
viz., that of redemption and salvation ;’ 
so also Jackson, Creed, x1. 8. 4, Bull, 
Primit. Tradit. v1. 28. The accordant 
opinion of these great writers claims our 
most serious consideration ; still as the 
aor. seems to point to a definite histori- 
cal fact, —as in ver. 8 there is appy. al- 
most a marked transition from the pre- 
incarnate to the incarnate Son, —as in 
yer. 10 this allusion seems still contin- 
ued in the name *Incod,—so here the 


60 PHILIPPIANS. 


CHaz. Ti.10 


10 (7 > lal - TG 4 lo) lal , 7 > ! ‘ 
wa ev T® ovopwate Inood may yoru Karyn érovpaviwy Kat 


reference is the same; dmepupotcSa Aé- 
yeTat, kal ds ovk Exwy, 51a Td avSpadmivoy 
povovovxt, Hippolyt. Fragm. Vol. 11. p. 
29 (ed. Fabr.). The exaltation is thus 
not merely relative but proper ; an inves- 
titure as the Son of Man, with all that 
full power, glory, and dominion, which 
as God He never wanted; see Pearson, 
Creed, Vol. 1. p. 190 (ed. Burt.). So, 
distinctly, Chrysost., Theodoret, Cyr.- 
Alex., some of the ante-Nicene and ap- 
parently the bulk of the post-Nicene 
writers. For the psychological consid- 
erations dependent on this exaltation of 
the God-man, see Delitzsch. Bibl. Psych. 
v. 1, p. 287. éxaplcaro| 
‘ freely gave ;’ chap. i. 29. ‘There is no 
reason whatever to depart from the sim- 
ple and proper lexical meaning of the 
word ; «i 5¢ Acyeta ev taker Xaplouaros 
7d brép Tay Bvoua SéxecSat, cis exetvo Sn- 
Aovdri peta capKds emavdryerat, cis Orep 
Fv Kat dixa oaprds, Cyr.-Alex. Thesaur. 
p- 130. bvoja K. 7. A.J 
‘a name the which is above every name ;’ 
a name, which, as the context shows, is 
not to be understood generically (comp. 
Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4), as Kupios (Mich.), 
or vids cop, but specifically and. ex- 
pressly as &. is, the name of His hu- 
miliation, and henceforth that of His ex- 
altation and glory; a name with which 
now every highest attribute, grace, 
power, dominion, and xupidrns (ver. 11) 
is eternally conjoined. There is thus no 
reason whatever for modifying the sim- 
ple meaning of dvoua: both here and 
elsewhere (Mark. vi. 14, John xii. 28, 
Acts iii. 16, Rom. i. 5, al.) the idea of 
‘dignity’ (Bloomf., Heinr.), is derived 
solely from the context ; see Van Heng. 
‘in loc. The reading is somewhat doubt- 
ful. Lachm. and Mey. read 1d dvoua 7d 
x. T.A., with ABC; 17; Copt. [a lan- 
guage which has a definite and indefi- 
nite article], Dionisius-Alex., Euseb., 


Cyr. (2), al.; but, as the insertion can 
more plausibly be referred to grammati- 
cal correction than the omission to erro- 
neous transcription, —scil. the prece- 
dence of 76, we retain with DEFGKL: 
nearly all mss.; Orig., Ath., Chrys., al., 
the reading of Tischendorf.. On the use 
of the article with the defining clause to 
characterize more expressly the preced- 
ing anarthrous noun, see Winer, § 21. 4, 
p- 126, who, however, appears to lean to 
the other reading. 

10. tva «. 7. A.] ‘that in the name of 
Jesus ;’ purpose and intent of the exal- 
tation. °Ev 7@ éydu. is not equivalent to 
eis 7) Uvoua (Heinr.) as directly specify- 
ing that to which (A0th.) the adoration 
is to be paid, nor yet, ‘ad nomen,’ Beza 
(compare Auth.), ‘ nuncupato nomine,’ 
Grot.,—a meaning of év évou. wholly 
without example in the N. T., but, with 
the full force of the prep., denotes the 
spiritual sphere, the holy element as it 
were, in which every prayer is to be of- 
fered and every knee to bow; see Eph. 
y. 20, and Harless in loc., who well re- 
marks that 7d dvouwa x. 7. A. does not, 
imply simply and per*se the personality 
(‘pro persona positum,’ Est.), but that 
personality as revealed to and acknowl- 
edged by man: compare also Winer, Gr. 
§ 48. a, p. 345. wav youu 
k.7.A.] ‘every knee should bow;’ eis 
mposkuvnow Sndrovdrt, Gicumen.; genu- 
flection being the external representation 
of worship and adoration ; see Rom. xi. 
4, xiv. 11, Eph. iii. 14 and notes in loc., 
Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. p. 777. The. 
subject to whom the adoration is di- 
rected, can only be, as Meyer rightly ob- 
serves, the principal subject of the con- 
text, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. 
Such an adoration is not, however, as 
Meyer goes on to say, merely relative 
(comp. ver. 11, eis dééav cod), but, as 
the whole aspects of the passage, its 


—— —— 


Cuap. II. 11. 


erruyeioy Kai KaTaySovior, 


PHILIPPIANS. 


61 


\ a a 
0 kat waca yAoooa e&oporoyjoetat 


drt Kipwos “Incovs Xpuotos eis ddfav Ocod tratpos. 


clear contrasts, and its concluding theme, 
—the exaltation of the Son, —scem all 
plainly to indicate, positive and absolute. 
By no one has the distinction between 
the relative and absolute worship of the 
Son been more clearly enunciated than 
by Bishop Bull; ‘si absolute ut Deus 
spectatur....... idem plane divinus cultus 
quem Patri exhibemus omnino debetur: 
Sin Filium intueamur relate qua Filius 
est, et ex Deo Patre trahit originem ; 
tum rursus certum est cultum et venera- 
tionem omnem quem ipsi deferimus, ad 
Patrem redundare,’ id. Nic. 1x. 15, — 
a section that for soundness of divinity 
and clearness of definition deserves atten- 
tive perusal: see also Waterl. Def. of 
Quer. xviI. Xvii1. Vol. 11. p. 421 sq. 

émovpaviwv x.7.A.] ‘of things in 
heaven, and things on earth, and things un- 
der the earth ;’ ‘que in ceelis, et in terra, 
et in abyssis,’ Sth. (Platt); comp. Rev. 
y. 13, and for examples of a similar sep- 
aration of the nom. from its dependent 
genitives, Winer, Gram. § 30. 2, p. 172. 
The three classes here mentioned are to 
be understood not with any ethical refer- 
ence («al of Sixasor [not Kal of (auTes, as 
cited by Mey. and Alf.] kat of Guaptwaot, 
Chrys. 2), but simply and plainly, angels 
and archangels in heaven (comp. Eph. 
i. 20, Heb. i. 4, 6), men upon earth (com- 
pare Plato, Repub/. vi11. p. 548 a, [ib.) 
Axioch. 368 B), and the departed under 
the earth ; emovpavlous Kade? Tas dopdrous 
duvdpets, emuyelous Se Tods Er CyTas dy- 
Spérovs kad kataxPovious Tovs TeSvEearTas ; 
ecmpare Delitasch, Bibl. Psych. v1. 3, p. 
354. The last class is referred by Chrys. 
1, Theoph., and Gicum. to Safuoves, but, 
as Meyer well observes, such is by no 
means the locality elsewhere assigned to 
them by the apostle (comp. Eph. vi. 12), 
nor is the homage of impotence or sub- 
jugated malice (2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6) an 


idea so suitable with the present as with 
the following clause. The other inter- 
pretations that have been proposed are 
either purely arbitrary (Christians, Jews, 
Heathens), or adjusted to dogmatical 
preconceptions (‘ qui in purgatorio sunt,’ 
Est.) to which the context yields no sup- 
port. It may be here briefly re- 
marked that the reverential custom of 
making an outward sign of adoration at 
the name of Jesus (Canon 18), though 
certainly not directly deducible from this 
text, may still, as Mede admits, be de- 
rived from it ‘ generali et indefinita con- 
sequentia,’ Hpist. 71; see Bingham, An- 
tig. Vol. rx. p. 245 sq., Andrewes, Serm. 
Ix. Vol. 1. p. 334 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 

ll. réca yAdooa| ‘every tongue ;’ 
not metaphorically, wdyra r& eSvn, The- 
odoret, but simply and literally in ac- 
cordance with, and in expansion of, the 
preceding concrete expression wav ydvu 3 
‘the knee is but a dumb acknowledg- 
ment, but a vocal confession that doth 
utter our mind plainly,’ Andrewes, Serm. 
1x. Vol. 11. p. 8337, who, however, with 
his characteristic exhaustion of every 
possible meaning also notices)the former, 
p- 339. éfomorAoynoeratl 
‘openly confess,’ ‘ diserte confiteatur ” 
[confitebitur], Beng.; the prep. not 
merely pointing to ‘ exitum vocis ab ore,’ 
Van Hengel (comp. Andrewes, J. c.); 
but, as the occurrence of the simple verb 
in similar but less emphatic passages 
(John ix. 22, al.), indirectly suggests, 
the openness and completeness of the dx0- 
Aoyia; compare Acts xix. 18, éfomodo- 
youmevor kad avaryyéAAovTes Tas mpdtels, 
Philo, Leg. Alleg. § 26, Vol. 1. p. 60 
(ed. Mang.), Lucian, Hermot. § 75 ; and 
see Fritz. on Matth. iii. 6, p. 126, who, 
however, on the other hand, somewhat 
over-presses the force of the compound, 
‘lubenter et aperte et vehementer confi- 


as. 
mae 
we 


62 PRILIFPIANS. 


Work out your salvation ; 
be peaceful and blameless, 


Cuap. II. 19. 


ia > / ; 
2 "Date ayarntol mov, Kay@s TavToTe UTN- 


s \ e > Lal / / > 
and give me cause to re. KOUTATE, [1] WS EV TH Tapovaig mov MOVO?, ana 


joice, even if I have to be offered up for you. 


teri.’ The student must always bear in 
mind the tendency of later writers to 
compound forms : see Thiersch, de Pent. 
11.1, p. 83. The reading is doubtful : 
on the one hand the fut. [ACDEFGKL; 
30 mss.; Zisch.| may be due to a change 
of vowels; on the other hand the subj. 
[B ; Lachm. ex errore] is very probably 
a correction of the anomalous future. 
On the whole, it seems safer to adhere 
to the majority of MSS. For examples 
of #va with a fut. see Winer, Gr. § 41. 1. 
bip.Zos: Kvptos] Predi- 
cate put forward with especial emphasis ; 
the contrary, as Mey. observes, is avds- 
eva Inoovs, 1 Cor. xii. 3. This august 
title is not to be limited ; it does not re- 
fer to a «upiérns merely over rational be- 
ings (Hoelem.), but assures us that not 
only hath Jesus Christ ‘an absolute, su- 
preme, and universal dominion over all 
things, as God,’ but that as the Son of 
Man He is invested with all power in 
heaven and earth ; partly economical, for 
the completing of our redemption ; partly 
consequent unto the union, or due unto 
the obedience of His passion, Pearson, 
Creed, Art. 11. ad fin., Vol. 1. p. 196 (ed. 
Burton). eis Sdfav K.7.A.] 
“to the glory of God the Father,’ depend- 
ent on efouoA., not on O71 K.T.A.3 2. €. 
the object contemplated by the act of con- 
fession (Mey., De W., Wiesing.), not the 
subject matter of it, Andrewes (/.c.), who, 
however, notices both. The transl. of 
Vulg., ‘in gloria’ (th., comp. Beng.), 
is an untenable alteration of the more 
correct ‘in gloriam ’ [better ‘ad gloriam,’ 
see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 817] of 
the Old Latin; so correctly Syr., Copt. 
, (%). The confession of Jesus as Lord of 

» all redounds ‘to the glory of the Father, 
whose Son He is; their honor insepara- 
ble and their glory one,’ Waterl. Vol. 


Il. p. 118: dépés mavtaxod bray 6 Tibs 
dokd(nra, Tov Tlarepa dokatduevov. Obtw 
bray ariud(ntat 6 Lids 6 Marhp armdCerat, 
Chrys.,— true and wise words that it is 
well to bear in mind. We now pass on 
to a more easy paragraph. 

12. dare] ‘So then,’ ‘Consequently ;’ 
exhortation directly and definitely flow- 
ing, not from all the previous admoni- 
tions, ch. i. 27 sq. (De W.), but more 
especially from the paragraph immedi- 
ately preceding, eis totro apopavres Tb 
mapddevryua, Theodoret. In the union of 
éore with the imper. the usual force of 
the particle (‘consecutio alicujus rei ex 
antecedentibus,’ Klotz) is somewhat ob- 
scured, — the idea of real or logical con- 
sequence (see notes on Gal. ii. 13) merg- 
ing into that of inferential exhortation ; 
‘rem faciendam certo documento firmat,’ 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 1013: see 
also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 776, and 


for examples, Winer, Gr. § 41. 5. 1, p.— 


269. In such a case the correct transla- 
tion in Latin is not ‘igitur’ (Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. s. v. p. 1013), nor even per- 
haps ‘ proinde,’ Beza (which according 
to Heindoif = ‘ igitur cum exhortatione 
quadam ’), but ‘itaque,’ Vulg., this par- 
ticle being more correctly used of con- 
clusions naturally flowing from what has 
preceded (nexus realis), ‘igitur’ of con- 
clusions that are the result of pure ratio- 
cination (nexus logicus) ; see especially 
Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. 

Kadws tmadvToTE K.T.A.] ‘as ye were 
always obedient :’ observe the latent par- 
allelism to srhxoos yevdu. v. 8. But to 
whom was the obedience shown? Not, 
as the context might at first sight seem 
to suggest, ‘ mihi,’ Aith., Conyb., ‘ mibi 
ad salutem vos hortanti,’ Beng., but, as 
the more plausible connection of wy as 
k. T. A. With the last clause seems to in- 


é’ 


Cuap. II. 12. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


63 


a a a J A b J \ / , 
viv TOAD paddrdov €v TH aTovcia pov peTg PoBou Kai TPdmou 


dicate, —to the tacit subject of the tra- 
Koy in ver. 8, 7. e. ‘to God ;” or what is 
in effect equivalent to it, ‘ Dei praeceptis 
ab apostolo traditis,’ Estius: so Van 
Heng., Mey., Alf., and among the older 
expositors, Crell. and perhaps Justiniani. 
On the later form kaSdés, see notes on 
Gal. iii. 6. Bh @s K.T-A.| 
‘not as if in my presence only, but now 
much more in my absence.’ These words 
must be connected with the succeeding 
imperative xarépy. (Grot., Lachm.), not 
with the preceding aor. irnx.,—a con- 
struction which would certainly seem to 
require ov (sec Winer, Gr.§ 55.1, p. 422), 
- and would tend to obliterate the force of 
viv. The ds (though omitted by B; a 
few mss.; Copt., Atth., al.) is certainly 
genuine, and not to be passed over in 
translation. The apostle does not con- 
tent himself with the simple precept, sa- 
TEpy. Mi) év wap. K. T.A., but also speci- 
fies the feeling and spirit with which they 
were to do it; 7. e. not with the spirit of 
men who did it when he was present, but 
left it undone when he was absent, but 
who even in the latter case did it in a 
yet higher degree; see Mey. in loc., who 
has well explained the force of this par- 
ticle. The slight difficulty arises from 
two oppositions — raytote — viv, mapou- 
ola — Grovcia being blended in a single 
enunciation. peta pdBouv 
Kk. 7. A.] ‘with fear and trembling,’ i. e. 
with anxious solicitude, with a distrust 
in your powers that you can ever do 
enough ; see especially Eph. vi. 5, and 
notes zn loc. ; compare also 1 Cor, ii. 3, 
2 Cor. vii. 15, where the meaning is sub- 
stantially the same. The ‘fear’ is thus 
to be referred, not directly to God (vduiCe 
mapeotdva Tov Ody, Chirys., Waterland, 
Works, Vol. v. p. 683), but only indi- 
rectly and inferentially ; the @éGos arose 
directly from a sense of the greatness of 
the work and the possibility of failure ; 


the tpéuos was the anxious solicitude 
which was naturally associated with it; 
see Conyb. in loc. An implied exhorta- 
tion to humility (Neander, p. 67), or 
warning against false security (Calv.), is 
not required by the context, and is not 
in accordance with what seems the regu- 
lar meaning in which the present form of 
words is used by the apostle; see esp. 
the good note of Hammond, who has 
well investigated the meaning of the ex- 
pression ; comp. Beveridge, Serm. xvi. 
Vol. 1. p. 294, who, however, is here 
less precise and discriminating. 

Thy €avtT@y cwtnp.| ‘your own sal- 
vation ;’ the reflexive pronoun not with- 
out ‘emphasis, hinting that now they 
were alone, and must act for themselves ; 
compare Beng. Their salvation was 
something essentially individual, some- 
thing between each man and his God. 
A reference to the example of Christ 
(‘as He obeyed so do you obey,’ Alf.) 
seems very doubtful; the whole exhor- 
tation refers to that example, but the in- 
dividual pronoun more naturally points 
to the words which immediately precede 
it. The unsatisfactory interpretation 
éavTav = GAAHAwy (compare Michaelis) 
is fairly refuted by Van Heng. in loc, 
katepyaCeade] ‘complete, ‘carry 
out,’ * peragite,’ Grot., ‘ perficite, perfec- 
tum reddite,’ Just. 2: compare Rom. 
vii. 18, Eph. vi. 13, and see notes zn loc., 
where the meanings of this verb are 
briefly noticed. The compound form 
does not imply the omovd} or émpéAcia 
(Chrysost.), but the ‘ perseverantia’ that 
was to be shown, the intensive kar& in- 
dicating the carrying through of the épyoyr ; 
see Rost u. Palm, Ler. s.v., and s. v. 
xard, Iv. Vol. 1. p. 1599. On the prac- 
tical aspects of the doctrine, see the good 
sermon by Beveridge, Serm. xv1. Vol. 
1. p. 284 (A.-C. Library), Taylor, Life 
of Christ 111. 13. 16, Sherlock, Sermon 


64 PHL PE AN S*. 


Cuap. II. 13. 


A. gle La r s .. S18, (2) x Pep? @. 58 a 
THY CAVTWY TWTNPLay Katepyalea se €os yap €oTlV O EVEPY@Y 


xvi. Vol. 1. p. 311 (edit. Hughes). 

13. @ebs yap k.7.A.] ‘for God is 
He who effectually worketh, ete.: yea, 
work and be not disheartened, for verily 
God is He who worketh within you. The 
yap is not argumentative in reference to a 
suppressed thought, «wh pdBov 871 eimov, 
peta PdB. cad tpduov, Chrys., but explan- 
atory (see notes on Gal. ii. 6), in refer- 
ence to the preceding command, obviat- 
ing any objection by demonstrating the 
vital truth on which it was based, and 
the great principle on which it was justi- 
fiable: ‘work anxiously, work solicit- 
ously ; verily (‘ sane pro rebus compara- 
tis,’ Klotz, Devar.: Vol. 11. p. 232) ‘ God 
giveth you the ability ;” compare Liicke 
on John iv. 44. The omission of the 
article before @eds is justified by ABCD! 
FGK ; al., and is adopted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 6 évepyar] ‘ He 


y 
who worketh effectually,’ eta [effi- 


ciens, sedulam operam navans]| Syriac. 
The: full meaning of this word, so fre- 
quently used by St. Paul, must not be 
obscured ; it appears in all cases to point 
not only to the inward nature of the 
working, but also to hint at the persistent 
and effective character of it, scil. évepydy 
elvat, ‘vim suam exercere ;’ comp. Po- 
lyb. Hist. 111. 6. 5, xvii. 14. 18, XXVII. 
1.11. When then Augustine urges in 
opposition to the Pelagian misinterpre- 
tation, ‘ Deus facit ut faciamus, proebendo 
vires efficacissimas voluntati,’ he would 
seem to be no less verbally exact than 
doctrinally accurate: compare de Grat. 
et Lib. Arb. 9. 16, contra Pelag. 1. 19. 

It may be remarked in passing, that év- 
epyeiy is used several times in Polybius, 
see Schweigh. Zer. s. v.; there is how- 
ever this distinction between his use and 
that of St. Paul, that by the latter it is 
never used in the passive (see notes on 
Gal. v. 6), and by the former never in 


the middle; see Fritz. Rom. vii. 5, and 
for a notice of its various constructions, 
notes on Gal. 1. c., and ib. ii. 8: see also 
Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 1115. 

év tyuiv] ‘in you,’ 7. e. in your minds, 
not among you; this being alike pre- 
cluded by the prevailing use of the verb 
(Matth. xiv. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 12, Gal. iii. 5 
[see notes], Col. i. 29, al.) and the nature 
of the context. kal 7d 
SéaAeuv k.7.A.] ‘both to will and to do,’ 
as much the one as the other. Observe 
especially the use of the more emphatic 
enumeration kal—ral; the SéAew no less 
than the évepyety is a direct result of the 
divine évépyera; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, 
p. 389, notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. Of these 
the first (7d SéAev) is due to the inwork- 
ing influence of sanctifying grace (Wa- 
terl. Serm. xxvi. Vol. v. p. 688), or, to 
speak more precisely, of gratia praeveni- 
ens, to which the first and feeblest mo- 
tion of the better will, the first process of 
the better judgment (2 Cor. iii. 5), is 
alone to be ascribed ; comp. Andrewes, 
Serm. Vol. v. p. 303: the second (7d 
éevepyetv) to the gratia co-operans, by the 
assistance of which we strive (‘non per 
vires nativas sed dativas’) to perform 
the will of God; see Ebrard, Christl. 
Dogm. § 524, Vol. 11. p. 566. The lan- 
guage of Chrys. in loc., ay SeAhons, Tore 
évepynoet Td SéeAev, might thus seem 
open to exception if the SeAjaps is to be 
referred to a ‘dispositio previa;’ this 
however cannot be certainly inferred 
from his context. For the diversities of 
opinion on this text, even among Ro- 
manists, see the long and perspicuous 
note of Justiniani zn Joc., and for the dif- 
ferences among Protestants, and the nec- 
essary distinction between passivity (‘ho- 
mo convertitur nolens’) and receptivity 
(‘ex nolente fit volens’), see Ebrard, 
Christl. Dogm. § 519—522, Vol. 11. p. 
558 sq. It may be remarked that 


a oe 


Cuar. II. 13, 14. 


PHILIPPIANS: 


65 


° ¢ an \ \ ls \ eS fal ie \ A 1) i 14 if 
€V UMLLV Kab TO Serco Kat TO EvVEpYyetv UTEP TS EVOOKLAS. TAVTEa 


the repetition of the word évepyety, (pre- 
served correctly by Claroman., Coptic, 


but not Syr., Vulg.), rather than xarep- - 


ydeoSu, is duc to the fact that it ex- 
presses more exactly the inward ability 
showing itself in action, and is thus more 
suitable in connection with SéAev. While 
then this important verse is a conclusive 
protest against Pelagianism on the one 
hand, its guarded language as well as 
its intimate connection with ver. 12 show 
that it is as conclusive on the other 
against the Dordracene doctrines of irre- 
vocable election (cap. 1), and all but 
compelling grace; cap. 111. Iv. 12, 16, 
Reject err. 8. 
evdox.| ‘of His good pleasure,’ i. e. in 
fulfilment of, to carry it out and satisfy 
it; Sid thy dydmny, 8d Thy dpecrelay ad- 
zov, Chrys. The prep. drep here seems 


© X fol 
uTep TiS 


to approach in meaning kata (Eph. i. 5), . 


or dia (Eph. ii. 4), but may still be clearly 
distinguished from either. It does not 
represent the evdoxia as the mere ratio of 
the action, or the mere norma accord- 
ing to which it was done, but, as the 
interested cause of it; the commodum of 
the evdoxia was that which the action 
was designed to subserve ; comp. Rom. 
xv. 8, John xi. 4, where howcver the 
primary meaning of irép is less obscured: 
see Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 343, and com- 
pare Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. v. bwép, 2, 
Vol. 11. p. 2067. Evdoxia is referred by 
Syr., Just., Green (Gram. N. T. p. 302), 
to the ‘ bona voluntas’ of the Philippi- 
ans: this is grammatically plausible, but 
owing to the preceding SéAew (Meyer) 
not exegetically satisfactory. Still less 
probable is the connection of the clause 
with ver. 14 (Conyb.), which, independ- 
ently of grammatical difficulties (see Al- 
ford), has the whole consent of antiquity, 
Ff. and Vyv., opposed to it. On the 
meaning of edSoxia, see notes on Eph. i. 
5, and compare Andrewes, Serm. x11. 

9 


Vol. 1. p. 289 (A.-C. Libr.). 

14. rdyta] ‘all things,’ not exactly 
‘everything you have to do,’ or with ref. 
to ver. 3 (Fell), but, as the context and 
the last of the two associated substan- 
tives seem to suggest, ‘ everything which 
stands in more immediate connection 
with the foregoing commands, and in 
which the malice of the devil might more 
especially be displayed :’ see Chrysost. 
in loc. yoyyuvouar| 
‘murmurings ;” compare 1 Pet. iv. 5, 
dvev yoyyvopuod : here apparently against 
God, 6 yoyyiGer axapire? TH Oey, 
Chrys. ; not, against one another, Wie- 
singer (‘placide se gerant inter homi- 
nes,’ Calv.),—a command which here 
finds no natural place. Alford urges 
that in every place in the N. T. (only 4, 
and only here by St. Paul) yoyyuou. re- 
fers to murmuring against men; but of 
these passages, one (John vii. 12) is not 
applicable, and another (1 Pet. iv. 9, 
compare De Wette) not perfectly cer- 
tain. That it may be applied to God 
seems demonstrable from 1 Cor. x. 10. 
The forms yoyyi¢w and yoyyvaopds [per- 
haps derived from the Sanscr. guy, ‘ to 
murmur,’ Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 
62] are said to be Ionic, the Attic forms 
being rovSopi(m and rovSepvcuds; see 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 858, compare Thom. 
M. p. 856 (ed. Bern.). On. the alleged 
but doubtful distinction between éyev and 
Xwpis, see notes on Hph. ii. 12. 
Siaroyiousy] ‘doubtings, *‘ hesita- 
tionibus,’ Vulg., Athiop. [dubitatione], 
Copt. [cogitationibus],— not ‘ detracta- 


. ‘g eos 
tionibus,’ Clarom., or eS [divis- 
ione], a meaning not found in the N. T., 
and apparently not supported by any 
good lexical authority; see especially 
hotes on 1 Tim. i. 8, where this word is 
briefly noticed. Alford urges the use of 
diadoyitw [read -iCoua] in Mark ix. 33, 


66 PHILIPPIANS. 


CHap, Ii. bar 


a) Q n \ Py A 15 / , 
MoeiTe ywpis yoyyvouav Kal oladoyiopor, wa yevnose 


34; but even there the idea is ‘ discus- 
sion,’ rather than ‘ dispute’ or ‘ conten- 
tion: comp. Xenoph. Mem., 111. 5. 1. 
15. fvya x. 7. A.| Object and aim, not 
‘incitamentum’ (Van Heng.), contem- 
plated in the foregoing exhortation. 
They were to fulfil everything connected 
with the great command, ver. 12 sq., 
without murmurings and doubtings, that 
they might both outwardly evince (&ueu- 
mrot) and be inwardly characterized by 
(axép.) rectitude and holiness, and so be- 
come examples to an evil world around 
them. When Alford urges against the 
internal reference of dad. that the object 
is outward,—blamelessness and good 
example, he suppresses the direct inter- 
nal object &xépao: (suitably answering to 
xwpls Siad.), and makes the apposition- 
ally stated, and more indirect object, — 
the good example, primary and direct. 
The reading is very doubtful; ZLachm. 
reads jive with AD'EIFG; Vulg., Cla- 
rom., al.; Lat. Ff.; but the external au- 
thority (BCD%E?KL; appy. all mss.; 
Chrys., Theod., Dam., al.) combined 
with the greater probability of correction 
seems slightly preponderant in favor of 
the text. &képarorl ‘pure,’ 
‘simplices,’ Vulg., th., ‘ sinceres[i],’ 
Clarom.; not ‘harmless,’ Auth., Alf., 
—-a meaning not recognized by the best 
ancient Vyv., and neither in harmony 
with the derivation and lexical meaning 
of the word (6 wh kexpamévos Kakois, GAN? 
Gmhods Kat amofcaAos, Etymol. M.), nor 
substantiated by its use in the N. T.: 
see Matth. x. 16, dxépator ws ai mepioTte- 
pat, Rom. xvi. 19, akepalous eis Tb Kandy ; 
in the former of which passages it stands 
in a species of antithesis to @pdéymos, in 
the latter to copds ; compare Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 154, Krebs. Obs. 
p- 331, and for the distinction between 
axép., amAods, and &axos, Tittm. Synon. 
i. p. 27. TéKva Oceo0d 


k. t. A.| ‘irreproachable, unblamable, chil- 
dren of God [by virtue of the viosecta, 
Rom. viii. 15, 23] zn the midst,’ etc. ; not 
‘irreproachable or blameless in the midst 
of,’ Luth., a position which weakens the 
climactic force of the epithet, and ob- 
scures the apparent allusion to Deut. 
Xxxii. 5, Téxva popntd, yeved oKoALd Kal 
dieotpaymevn- “Audunrtos | Lachm. tuwma, 
with ABC; 2 mss.; but an apparent al- 
teration] is a dls Aeydu. in the N. T., 
here and 2 Pet. iii. 14 (Lachm., Tisch.), 
compare Hom. J/. x11. 109; and, as de- 
rivation and termination suggest, ap- 
pears but little different from dmeumros, 
except as perhaps approaching nearer to 
tpmmos (Hesych. duduntos: &uwpos), and 
expressing not merely the unblamed 
(Xen. Ages. vi. 8), but non-blamewor- 
thy state of the réxkva; compare Aisch. 
Sept. 508, and see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 
29. The reading péoov 
(adverbially used, Winer, Gr. § 54. 6), 
with ABCD!FG (Lachm., Tisch.), has 
the weight of uncial authority as well as 
critical probability in its favor. 
oKoAtas Kat 5t:earTp.| ‘crooked and 
perverted,’ in reference to their moral 
obliquity and their distorted spiritual 
growth ; compare Deut. xxxii. 5. 3xo- 
Aids, allied probably to oxéAos, oxeAAds, 
and oxalpew [Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. 
p- 268, root-form =K-, ‘ progression by 
steps,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 387, less prob- 
ably KP-, Sanscr. kri with prefixed o¢, 
Benfey, Wurzell. Vol. 11. p. 363], occurs 
elsewhere in the N. T., once in a proper 
sense, Luke iii. 5, and twice, as here, in 
an ethical sense, Acts ii. 40, 1 Peter ii. 
18. Aveorp. is similarly found in Matth. 
xvii. 17, Luke ix. 41, Acts xx. 80; see 
also examples from Arrian in Raphel, 
Annot. Vol. 11. p. 309. 

év ois| ‘among whom,’— in reference to 
the persons of which the yeved was com- 
posed; comp. Winer, Gir. § 58. 4. b, p. 


Fak 
a 


Cuap. II. 15, 16. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


67 


apeptrroe Kal axépatot, Téexva Ocod duopynta pécov yeveds cxods 


\ f > e / ig nr > bs 
Kal duectpapperns, ev ois paweose ws hworthpes ev Koco, 
6 Noyou bwijs émréxyovtes, els Kavynwa éuol eis nuépav Xpio tod, 


457: so, somewhat similarly, Gal. ii. 2. 
galveose] ‘ye appear, are seen;’ not 
‘lucetis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Wordsw., al., 
which would require the active patverte, 
Johni. 5, v. 35, 2 Pet. i. 19, al. Alford 
objects that the active is not used by St. 
Paul: but will this justify a departure 
not only from the simple meaning of the 
word, but from the special use of the 
middle in connection with the appear- 
ance or rising of heavenly bodies ? see 
examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 11. 
‘1. b. The verb is indicative (Vulg., 
Copt., Ath.), not imperat. (Syr., The- 
ophyl.) : Christians were not to be, but 
now actually were, as luminaries in a 
dark, heathen, world; compare Matth. 
v. 14, Eph. v. 8. 
gwaoripes év koopo] ‘ luminaries, 
heavenly lights in the world ;’ ev kéap. be- 
ing closely joined with gwar. as its secon- 
dary predicate (Vulg. and all Vy.), not 
with gaiveade (De W.), which would 
thus have two prepositional adjuncts. 
To illustrate the meaning of gwar. com- 
pare Rev. xxi. 11, Gen. i. 14, 16, Ec- 
clus. xliii. 7 (applied to the moon), Wis- 
dom xiii. 2, and for the different uses of 
kéopos, here apparently in its ethical 
sense, see notes on Gal. iv. 3. The ref- 
erence to the use of torches to guide pas- 
sengers along the narrow and winding 
streets of a city (Wordsw.) is ingenious, 
but scarcely in harmony with aiveade, 
and the tenor of the context. 

16. éwéxovres k.T.A.] ‘seeing ye 
hold forth (are the ministers of ) the word 
of life:’ farther and explanatory defini- 
tion of the preceding, the participle hav- 
inga slightly causal force.. The meaning 
of éréx. is somewhat doubtful. It cer- 
tainly cannot be for rpocéxovres, 'Theod., 
as this would require a dat. ; it may, how- 


ever, be either (a) occupantes, comp. Syr. 
> > > = 
cero NR stan i eae 
[ut sitis illis loco salutis], and thence, 
with a modification of meaning, ‘ conti- 
nentes,’ Vulg., Claroman., ‘ tenentes,’ 
Copt. (ith. paraphrases), karéxovtes, 
Chrys., éxovres, Theoph., Cicum ,— 
a translation that has certainly a lexical 
basis (see examples in Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s, v.1. b, Vol. 1. p. 1029) and is far 
too hastily condemned by Van Heng. 
and Wiesing.; (8) pretendentes, Beza, 
Auth., ‘doctrinam spectandam preben- 
tes,’ Van Heng., with reference to the 
preceding image. Of these interpr. (a), 
has clearly the weight of antiquity on its 
side ; still as no exactly opposite example 
of the modified sense ‘continentes’ has 
yet been adduced, and as the meaning 
‘occupantes’ involves an idea foreign to 
the N. T. (compare Meyer), we seem 
bound to adhere to (8), a meaning that 
is lexically accurate and exegetically 
satisfactory. The objection of Meyer is 
fully answered by Alford in loc. 
The Adyos (wijs is the gospel, (wis being 
a species of gen. of the content, rhy aid- 
viov mpokevet (why, Theod.: comp. John 
vi. 68, and notes on Eph. i. 13. 
eis kavxnpmal ‘to form a ground of 
boasting for me;’ result, on the side of 
St. Paul, of his converts becoming ueu- 
mrot Kal aképaur: ToTalTn buav 7) apeTh, 
ds ph tyuas ode pdvor, GANA ‘kad eue 
Aaumpov moeiv, Chrys. ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 
14. eis Huépay Xp.| 
‘against the day of Christ ;’ the preposi- 
tion not so much marking the epoch to 
which (€ws), as that for which, in refer- 
ence to which, the boasting was to be 
reserved ; compare ch. i. 10, Eph. iv. 30, 
and notes on Gal. iii. 23. On the ex- 


- 


68 


’ ’ > \ oo» Ny Ves / 
OTL OVK ELS KEVOV Edpapov ovoée ELS KEVOV CKOTLACA. 


PHILIP PIANS* 


Cuap. IT. 17,18. 


WW Gra ef Kab 


omevoopat eri TH Svoia Kat NevToupyia Tis TicTews Lov, xalpw 
na cal X ] an 
Kal cuvyaipw tracw tpi. Bro 8 avto Kai tpeis yalpere Kat 


TUVXALPETE [L0b. 


pression jjuepa Xp., see notes on ch. i. 6. 
Zdpauov, éxorlaca| Thesame idea 
of ministerial activity presented in two 
different forms of expression, the one fig- 
urative, from the stadium (comp. Gal. 
ii. 2, 2 Tim. iy. 7), the other more gen- 
eral, involving the notion of the toil and 
suffering undergone in the cause; see 
notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. For exx. 
of the adverbial eis kevdvy, Heb. pb, 
Job xxxix. 16 (comp. eis xaddv, eis Kot- 
vév, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11, p. 221), see 
2 Cor. vi. 1, Gal. ii. 2, 1 Thess. ‘iii. 5, 
and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 275. 

17. GAAG x. 7. A.] ‘ Howbeit, if I be 
even poured out ;’ contrary hypothesis to 
that tacitly implied in the preceding 
verse. In no verse in this epistle is it 
more necessary to adhere to the exact 
force of the particles and the strict lexi- 
cal meaning of the words. °AAAd, with 
its primary and proper force (‘ aliud jam 
hoe esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2), has no reference 
to a suppressed thought (ov éxom. «is 
xev., Rill.), but presents the contrary al- 
ternative to that already implicitly ex- 
pressed. The preceding words eis kav- 
xnua might seem to imply the exyecta- 
tion, on the part of the apostle, of a liv- 
ing fruition in the Christian progress (iva 
yev. &ueurr.) of his converts ; the pres- 
ent verse shows the apostle’s joy even in 
the supposition of his death; compare 
Bisping. So remote a reference as to ch. 
i. 26 (De W.) is wholly inconceivable ; 
and even a contrast to an implied hope 
that the apostle would survive to the 
huepa Xp. (Van Heng.) improbable, as 
cis Hu. Xp. is only a subordinate thought 
to the general idea implied in cis catxnua 
uot. ei kat must not be 
confounded with «ai ei (Scholef. Hints, 


p- 106), but, in accordance with the po- 
sition of the ascensive cat, marks a more 
probable supposition ; the «at in the for- 
mer case being referred to the consequent 
words (etsi or si etiam), but in the latter 
merely to the preceding condition (etiam 
st). Contrast Soph. Gd. Rex, 302, et 
kal ph BAémrets ppovets & Guws, or ib. 304, 
ei kal wy KAvELs, With Asch. Choeph. 296, 
Kei wy mwemoia, ToUpyov éa7 épyacréoy, 
and see especially Herm. Viger, No. 307, 
from which these cxamples are taken ; 
see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 519, 
Hartung, Partik. nal, 3. 3, Vol. 1. p. 
141. Thus, then, in the pres- 
ent case, the apostle in no way seeks to 
limit the probability of the supposition ; 
his circumstances, though by no means 
without hope (ch. i. 25), were still such 
as seemed to preclude any such limita- 
tion. It may be remarked, however, 
that cat ei is very rare in St. Paul; ap- 
apparently only in 2 Cor. xiii. 4 (Ree., 
Tisch.), if indeed the reading be consid- 
ered genuine ; comp. Gal. i. 8. 

omévdouat| ‘am poured out, am in 
the act of being so, in reference to the 
dangers with which he was environed ; 
comp. ch.i.20. The simple form, which 
must not be confounded either with émo- 
mévd. (Herod. 11. 39, rv. 62, Plut. Popl. 
§ 4, al.), or karaorévd. (Plutarch Alex. 
§ 50, ib. Mor. p. 435 B, p. 437 a), both 
here and in 2 Tim. iv. 5, under the im- 
age of the ritual drink-offering which 
accompanied the sacrifice (Numb. xv. 5, 
xxviii. 7), alludes to the pouring out of 
his blood (‘libor,—not ‘immolor,’ as 
Vulg., Syriac, Copt.) and the martyr’s 
death by which it might be reserved for 
the apostle to glorify God; see espec- 
jally notes on 2 Tim. l. c., Suicer, The- 
saur. Vol. 11. p. 993,.and the good note 


Crap. JI.-19. 


I hope tosend my unselfish 
son in the faith, Timothy, 
and to come myself. 


of Wordsworth in loc. éml TH 
Svola «.t.A.] ‘unto the sacrifice and 
(priestly) service of your faith.’ The ex- 


act meaning of Svofg is somewhat doubt- 
ful. There is certainly no éy dia dvoiy 
(comp. Conyb.), but it may be doubted 
whether the use of the single article does 
not so connect Svc. and Aer., that both 
may specify acts of which wicr. is the 
common object; see Mey. in loc. As, 
however, Svofa in St. Paul’s Epistles, 
and indeed throughout the N. T., appy. 
always means the thing sacrificed, not 
the action, we seem bound with Syriac, 
Vulg.; Copt. [? for comp. John xvi. 2], 
4Hth., and thus far Chrys. and Theod., 
to retain the simple meaning of Suc. and 
to regard mictews as a common gen..ob- 
Jjecti to both, standing in a species of ap- 
positional relation to the former (the 
faith, not the apostle [Chrys., Theod.], 
was the sacrif.) and of simple relation to 
the latter. The Svoia, then, is the sacri- 
fice, the Aecr. the act of offering it by the 
apostle (Bisp.), and the object both of 
one and the other (in slightly different 
relations) the wiots of the Philippians. 
°Em) will thus be, not simply temporal, 
‘wihrend,’ Meyer, nor simply ethical, 
‘ propter,’ or ‘in sacrificium,’ /Eth., but 
will imply ‘ addition,’ ‘accession to’ 
(Matth. xxv. 20), and will point to the 
oreyd. as the concomitant act; see esp. 
Arrian, Alex. v1. 19.5, omeioas én) TH 
Svola, cited by Raphel in loc. ; so Van 
Heng. and De Wette. The local mean- 
ing is untenable, as with the Jews the 
libation was not poured on (Jahn, Ar- 
cheol. § 378), but around the altar ; see 
Joseph. Antig. 111. 9. 4, and notes on 2 
Tim. iv. 5. xaipw Kat 
avvx] ‘rejoice, and jointly rejoice with 
you all ;’ I rejoice absolutely (not ém 
7H Ivo. xalp. Chrys.), 7.e on account of 
my probable orévySeoSa, and do herein 


PHILIPPIANS. 


69 


19 "Exmifm dé év Kupio “Incod TipoSeov 
, , €) OTA ivf ] \ > SA \ 
Taxews Tréprat viv, va Kayo einpvyd yvods 


participate in rejoicing with you all: my 
joy is not altered on the supposition of 
my death. Zuvxaipw is not ‘ congratu- 
lator,’ Vulg..—a meaning which the 
verb apparently may have in classical 
(Ausch. de Fals. Leg. p. 84), as well as 
post-classical writers (Polyb. ist. xx1x. 
7. 4),—but ‘simul gaudeo,’ Coptic, 


v mn 
ass 1°23 [exulto cum| Syr., 2th. (7%), 
the meaning which ouyvx. always appears 
to have in the N. T., and to which the 
following verse offers no exegetical ob- 
stacle (Meyer, Alf.) but is rather con- 
firmatory. 

18. 7d 8 avrd| ‘yea, on the same 
account ;’ not ‘in like manner,’ Scholef. 
Hints, p. 106, but the simple pronomi- 
nal accus. after xaipw ; compare Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 46. 5.9. Meyer reads avrd 
tovto, ‘hoc ipsum,’ apparently by an 
oversight, as there is here no difference 
of reading. xalpete ka 
guvx.] ‘rejoice and jointly rejoice ;’ not ; 
indic. Erasmus, but imper., as Syr. and 
all the best Vv. The apostle had pre- 
viously said that he rejoiced not only for 
himself, but associated them with this 
joy: lest they might think that the prob- 
able martyrdom of their loved apostle 
was not a subject for cvvxalpew, he em- 
phatically repeats in a reciprocal form 
(kat du.) what he had implied in the pre- 
ceding verse,— that they were indeed to 
rejoice in this seemingly mournful alter- 
native. zt 

19. €Amwigw Sé] ‘yet I hope ;’ the op- 
positive 5¢ suggests that the orévé. above 
mentioned was not necessarily consid- 
ered either as certain or immediate. This 
hope was év Kupiw, it rested and was cen- 
tred in Him, it arose from no extraneous 
feelings or expectations, and so would 
doubtless be fulfilled, Sa65@ dr: é£evpapt- 
cet pol 6 Meds TodTo, Chrys. ; see notes 


\ 


70 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 20, 21 


3 Ay lal 20 > \ 7 desde ee , \ 
TA TEPL VILOV- ovdeva yap Exw iaouyor, OoTIs YyYnTiWs Ta 


lal 4 48 lal nr 2 
Trept twov pepysvjoe 7 of mavtTes yap Ta Eavtdv CnTodow, ov 


on Ephes. iv. 17, vi. 1. 

bpiv] ‘to you,’ not ‘ unto you’ in the 
‘sense of mpds Suas,—a local usage of the 
dative too broadly denied by Alf. (see 
Winer, Gr. § 31. 5, p. 192; compare 
Hartung, Casus, p. 81 sq.), nor again 
the dat. commodi, De Wette, but the da- 
tive of the recipients (Mey.), falling un- 
der the general head of what is techni- 
cally termed the transmissive dat. ; com- 
pare Jelf, Gr. § 587. 
evWvx a] ‘TZ also (I the sender as well 
as you the receivers) may be of good heart.’ 
Edvx. is an dr. Aeydu. in the N. T., but 
is occasionally found elsewhere, compare 
Poll. Onom. 111. 28: the subst. edpuxta 
(Polyb. 1. 57. 2, 11. 55. 4, al.) and the 
ady. etWixws (Polyb. x. 39. 2, al., Jo- 
seph. Ant. vit. 6. 2) are sufficiently com- 
mon. ‘The use of the verb in the imper- 
atiye as a kind of epitaph is noticed by 
Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.; Jacobs, Anth. 
Pal. p. 939. 

20. yap] Reason for sending Timo- 
thy in preference to any one else: Tiué- 
Seov méureis ; TL dhmote; Nal, pyoiv, ov- 
déva yap K. T. A., Chrys. 
iodWuxov] ‘like-minded, 7. e., with 
myself, guolws éuol kndduevov buoy Kal 
ppovtiCovta, Chrysostom ; compare Syr. 


2 A 
Kayo 


oo ¥, = 
le Sd eWay) [qui sicut animam me- 


am]: so expressly Copt., Syr. Timothy 
is not here contrasted with others (Be- 
za), but, in accordance with the natural 
and logical reference of the icdrns to the 
subject of the sentence, with the apostle. 
On the distinction between iody. ‘ qui 
eodem modo est animatus,’ and ovuv- 
xos, ‘qui idem sentit, unanimis,’ see 
Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 67. The word 
is an Gz. Aeydu. in the N. T., but is found 
occasionally elsewhere, both in classical 
(ZEsch. Agam. 1479), and post-classical, 
Greek (Psalm liy. 13) ; comp. icopixws, 


Eustath. on Ii. x1. p. 764. 

? not ‘quippe qui,’ but 
‘ita comparatus ut,’ Mey., ‘ of that kind, 
who,’ Alf., with reference to the za:drys 
of the antecedent (ovdels towitrds éoti, 
Chrys., comp. Hartung, Casus, p. 286) ; 
the relative being here used (to adopt a 
terminology previously explained) not 
explicatively, but classifically, or qualita- 
tively ; see notes on Gal. iv. 24, and Krii- 
ger, Sprachl. § 51. 8 sq., where the dif- 
ference between ds and dots is briefly 
but satisfactorily explained. 

yunolws meptmvajcer| ‘ will genu- 
inely care for,’ ‘will have true care for ;’ 
with that genuineness of feeling which 
befits the relationship between the apos- 
tle and his converts; yvyoiws, rovréort 
matpik@s ; compare 1 Tim. i. 2, and see 
notes in loc. Mepiuvay is always thus 
used with an accusative of the object by 
St. Paul,— contrast Matth. vi. 25 (dat.), 
ch. vi. 28, Luke x. 41 (with wep¢), ch. xii. 
25 (absolutely),—and agreeably to its 
probable derivation and affinities, wepyn- 
pi(w, mépuepos [Sanscr. smr7,— ‘ memi- 
nisse,’ ‘anxium esse,’ Benfey, Wurzel- 
lex. Vol. 11. p. 82, Donalds. Craty/. 
§ 410] denotes anxious thought, solici- 
tude, ‘ita cnrare ut solicitus sis’ (comp. 
Luke x. 41), differing in this respect 
from the simpler dpovri¢ew ; see Tittm. 
Synon. 1. p. 187. The future is not eth- 
ical, but points to the time when Timo- 
thy should come to them. 

21. of madvres yap] ‘forall the rest 
(now with me) ;’ not ‘plerique,’ Wolf, 
but ‘omnes quos nunc habeo mecum,’ 
Van Heng., the article, apparently spec- 
ifying the whole number of the others 
with St. Paul (cuncti), to whom the sin- 
gle one, Timothy, is put in contrast. 
On this use of the art. with was, see IXrii- 
ger, Sprachl. § 50. 11. 12, compare Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v1. 24, p. 320, and Rose, 


Sots] ‘who; 


‘Cup. II. 22-24. , 


99, 


am 


ta Incod Xpicrov. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


71 


\ be 8 \ > a 7 4 e 
THV O€ OCOKLLNY AUVTOV YWWOKETE, OTL WS 


\ / \ > oY 25 7 > AS >’ / A 23 na 
TAaTpl TEKVOY GUY EOL E0OVAEUTEV ELS TO EVAyYEALOV TOUTOV 
A N / \ \ a 
pev odv errrivo Tréurpat, os dv aid Ta Trepl ue, CEavriis. 4 cé- 
a Ul ¢c/ \ Cy, ig > , 
mowsa dé év Kupig ort Kal avtos Tayews EhevTomal. 


21. "Incod Xpictov| So Lachmann, with ACDEFG; mss.; many Vy.; Lat. Ff. 


(Griesb., Scholz; Rec. inserts tov). 


The reversed order is adopted by Tisch. with 


BL; great majority of mss.; Demid., Copt., Syr.: Philox.; many Ff. The ex- 
ternal authority seems to preponderate decidedly in favor of the text. 


in Middl. Art. p. 104 note, to whose list 
of examples of the art. with mas (plur.), 
when used without a subst., this passage 
may be added. The attempts to explain 
away this declaration are very numerous, 
but all either arbitrary or ungrammati- 
cal: this only it seems fair to urge, that 
the context does necessarily imply some 
sort of limitation, and does apparently 
warrant our restricting it to all those 
companions of St. Paul who were ayail- 
able for missionary purposes, who had 
undertaken, and were now falling back 
from the hardships of an apostle’s life. 
Who these were, cannot be ascertained ; 
compare Wiesing. in loc. 
Ta éavTa@y| ‘their own things,’ not 
specially thy oirelay avdmavow Kat Td év 
acparela elvat, Chrys., followed by The- 
oph. and Gicum., with reference to the 
difficulties and perils of the journey, but 
generally, ‘sua,’ Clarom., ‘temporalia 
commoda consectantes,’ Anselm,— con- 
sidering their own selfish interests, and 
not the glory and honor of Christ ; com- 
pare ver. 4. 

22. thy SE BSoniuhvr] ‘But his 
tried character ;’ contrast of the charac- 
ter of Timothy with that of the of raves. 


o > 
Aoki, Leoos [probatio] Syr., ‘ ex- 
perimentum,’ Vulg., here and Rom. v. 
4, 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, by a very easy 
gradation of meaning points to the indo- 
les spectata,’ Fritz, (Rom. v. 4, Vol. 1. 
p- 259), ‘indoles,’ Adth. [simply,— al- 
most as we use ‘character’], by which 
Timothy was distinguished, and of which 


the Philippians themselves probably had. 
personal experience on a former visit ; 
comp. Acts xvi. 1-4 with ver. 12. The 
use of Soxiu} in the N. T. is confined to 
St. Paul’s Epistles; compare Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p. 229. 

yiveonete] ‘ye know;’ indicative, as 
Syr., Clarom., Copt., Auth., not imper., 
as Vulg., Corn. a Lap.,—a construction 
almost plainly inconsistent with the fol- 
lowing words, which seem specially de- 
signed to explain and justify the asser- 
tion ; kal Ott ovx aTAGs A€yw, Bets, pn- 
oly, avtol emicracde, Stik. T.A., Chrys. 
@s wmatpt téxvov| ‘asa child to a 
father, ‘sicut patri filius,’ Vulg., not 
‘with a father,’ Syr., Auth. Ver.; such 
an omission of the preposition in the first 
member being apparently confined to 
poetry ; see Jelf, Grr. § 650. 1, 2, Krii- 
ger, Sprachl. § 68.9.2. Mey. and Alf. 
deny unrestrictedly an omission of the 
prep. in the first member, but see Asch. 
Suppl. 313, Eurip. Hel. 872, and Jelf, 
Gr. § 650. 2. The construction affords 
an example of what is termed ‘oratio 
variata :’ the apostle, feeling that edov- 
Aevocev was scarcely suitable in connec- 
tion with rarp} and réxvov, proceeds with 
the comparison in a slightly changed 
form ; edovAcvoev,— not euol, as the con- 
struction might seem to require (Rom. 
xvi. 18), but ody éuol, as the nature of 
the relation suggested; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 63. 11. 1, p. 509. eis Td 
evayyéator| ‘for the gospel ;’ not ‘in 
the gospel,’ Auth., Syr., ‘in the doctrine 
of the gospel,’ /ith., but ‘in evange- 


72 


Epaphroditus, your mes- 
senger, who has been griev- 
ously sick, and has risked 
his life for me, I send back, 
that you may rejoice. 


lium,’ Vulg., 7. e. to further the cause of 
the gospel; the preposition eis with its 
usual force denoting the object and des- 
tination of the action ; compare Luke v. 
4, 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer, Gr. § 49. a, 
p- 354. 

23. rodtov péev ody] ‘Him then;’ 
the wey being antithetical to dé, ver. 24, 
and the retrospective o#y continuing and 
concluding the subject of the mission of 
Timothy. On this force of ody see notes 
on Gal. iii. 5. as bv 
apldw] ‘whensoever I shall have seen 
(the issue of) ;’ in effect, ‘so soon as I 
shall have, or have seen, etc.,’ Auth., 
bray tow év tim €ornwa, Chrys., but de- 
signedly couched in terms involving 
more of doubt, the particle ay being 
joined with the temporal és to convey 
the complete uncertainty when the ob- 
jectively-possible event specified by the 
subjunctive will actually take place ; 
compare Jelf, Gr. § 841, Herm. de Par- 
tic. &y, 11. 11, p. 120, and on the tempo- 
ral use of és, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p. 759. The remark of Eustathius (p. 
1214, 40) is very pertinent, dt: 5é éoti 
Tis Kal Xpovtkh ToTE onuacta, patveTat ev 
émiaToAn Tod BaciAews *Aytidxov, oiov, 
ds by ody AdBys Thy emicToAhv, cbvTakov 
Kipuvyua Toncacsa, Hyouv qvixa AdBys. 
He would, however, have been more cor- 
rect if he had said jvi« &y, see Ellendt, 
Lex. Sophocl. Vol. 1. p. 773. In the 
compound form apis. the prep. is not in- 
tensive, ‘see clearly’ (Alf.), but local, 
referring, however, not to the object, but 
to the observer, ‘ prospicere,’ and per- 
haps may further involve the idea of a 
“terminus’ looked to; see Jonah iv. 5 
(a pertinent example), Herod. vir. 37 ; 
compare aroseaodat, amockoreiy, al., and 
especially Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 
11. The change from the tenuis to the 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Crap. II. 25. 


% -Avarykaiov dé iHynodunv “Emadpodctov 

n as 

Tov adeApov Kal cuvepyov Kal ovvaoTpaTUOTHY 
pov, tua@v O€ amocToNoy Kal AeLTOUpyoV THs 


aspirate (with AB1DIFGN ; 17, Lachm., 
Tisch.) is ascribed by Winer (Gr. § 5. 1, 
p. 43) to the pronunciation of idet with 
a digamma; comp. Acts iv. 29 (Lachm., 
Tisch.). Ta Tept émel 
‘the things pertaining to me ;’ not identi- 
cal with 7a kar’ eué (ch. i. 12), but with 
a faint idea of motion (occupation about, 
Acts xix. 25), in ref. to their issue and 
development; 7. e. how they will turn, 
what issues they will have; mofoy efe 
TéXos, Chrys., €av TeAcov AdBn Atow TH 
ducxep7j, Theod. The form ééaurjs, se. 
tis Spas, ‘ illico,’ ‘e vestigio’ (mapavtixa, 
Hesych., edSéws, Suid.), occurs in Mark 
vi. 25, Acts x. 33, al. 

24. mémoid. év Kupl@] ‘am con- 
Jident in the Lord ;’ He is the sphere of 
my confidence ; ‘see notes on yer. 19, and 
on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. 
kal avtds| ‘I myself also;’ the rar 
implying that besides sending Timothy 
to them, the apostle hoped himself to 
come in person. The taxéws, as Meyer 
remarks, must, as in ver. 19, date from 
the present time, the time of writing the 
Epistle. In recurring, however, to the 
mission of Timothy, ver. 23, he ex- 
presses the hope that it would be efaurfjs, 
‘forthwith ;’ his own visit he had good 
confidence would be raxéws, 7. e. no long 
interval after. 

25. avaykatov 6& nyna.| ‘yet I 
deemed it necessary ;’? though probable, 
the mission of Timothy and the apostle’s 
own visit were both contingent; he 
deemed it necessary therefore to send 
(back) one on whom he could rely, and 
in whom the Philippians had interest 
and confidence. Wiesinger denies any 
connection between the sending back 
Epaphr. and the mission of Timothy ; 
this, however, is surely to overlook the 
antithesis suggested by 5¢€. On the use 


Cnap. II. 26. Tel el So Opa Og 


xXpelas pov, Tréuapar Tpos tpas, 


of the epistolary aorist (still more ex- 
pressly ver. 28), see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5, 
b. 2, p. 249. "Emappdditoyr 
Of Epaphroditus, beyond this passage, 
nothing is known. He has been sup- 
posed to be the same with Epaphras, Col. 
i. 7, iv. 12, Philem. 23; but this, though 
etymologically possible, is certainly not 
historically demonstrable. As the name 
appears. to have been not uncommon 
(Sueton. Nero, § 49, Joseph. contr. Ap. 
I. 1, al., see Wetst. im loc.),— as Epa- 
phras was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12),— 
and as the alms of the European city of 
Philippi would hardly haye been com- 
mitted to the member of a church so re- 
mote from it as the Asiatic Colosse, it 
seems natural to regard them as different 
persons. For the necessarily scanty lit- 
erature on the subject, see Winer, RWB. 
Art. ‘Epaphras,’ Vol. 1. p. 330. 
Tov adeApdy x«.t.A.] Three general 
but climactic designations of the (spirit- 
ual) relation in which Epaphroditus 
stood to the apostle, under the vinculum 
of the common article; my brother in 
the faith, fellow-worker in preaching it, 
and fellow-soldier in maintaining and 
defending it; on cuvortpar. compare 2 
Tim. ii. 3, and notes zn loc. 
buadv SE x. 7. A.] ‘but your messenger 
and minister to my need ;’ secular and ad- 
ministrative relation in which Epaph. 
stood to the Philippians. °’Améo7odoyr is 
here used in its simple etymological 
sense, not ‘apostolum,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
Thy emycAciay tuav éeumemioTevpévoy, 
~“Theod., Chrys. 2 (comp. Taylor, 'E/pisc. 
§ 4. 3), but, as the context seems to re- 
quire, ‘legatum,’ Beza, Beng.; comp. 
2 Cor. viii. 3, and see notes on Gal. i. 1. 
Ae:roupydv (Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16) is used 
‘in its general and wider sense of ‘ minis- 
ter’ in ref. to the office undertaken by 
Epaphy. @s 7a wap’ abr@v dmooranévra. ko- 
ploavra xphuata, Theod. On the vari- 
10 


PIANS. 73 


6 errevdy) eTiUTON@V FV TWavTas 


* 


ous meanings of Aer. see Suicer, The- 
saur. 8. Vv. Vol. 11. p. 222. The 
connection is not perfectly certain, but 
on the whole it scems most natural to 
connect tudy with this as well as with 
the preceding subst., comp. ver. 30: so 
Scholef, Hints, p. 106; contr. De Wette 
(comp. Aith.), who, however, urges no 
satisfactory reason for the separation. 
wéupat| It was really dvaméupa, comp. 
ch. iv. 18: if, however, as does not seem 
improbable, Epaphr. was sent to stay 
some little time with the apostle (Beng.), 
the simple form becomes more appropri- 
ate: comp. ver. 28, 30. 

26. éwerdy x. 7. A.| Reason for the 
dvayKaioy Fyntdunv. The conjunction 
éreidh , ‘quoniam’ [quom jam], ‘ sinte- 
mal,’ ‘ since ’(sith-then-ce, comp. Tooke, 
Div. of Purl. 1.8, Vol. 1. p. 253), differs 
thus, and thus only, from é7eé, that it also 
involyes the quasi-temporal reference 
(‘affirmatio rerum eventu petita,’ Klotz) 
which is supplied to it by 64, and thus 
expresses a thing that at once ensues 
temporally or causally) on the occur- 
rence or realization of another; s+ 808 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. Nan Haxtung, 
Partik. 84, 3.8, Vol.t. p- 259. | 
of frequent occurrence in’ i ai “ily 
St. Paul only, 1 Cor. i321, 22, xiv. . 
eye Oh : érimoday fv] 
‘he was longing after you all.’ On this 
use of pres. part. with thé auxiliary verb, 
to denote the duration of a state (less 
commonly in ref. to an action), see Wi- 
ner, Gram. § 45. 5, p. 311, and notes on 
Gal. i. 23. The construction is occa- 
sionally found in classical Greek (see 
examples in Winer, /. c., and Jelf, Gr. 
§ 375. 4), but commonly with the limi- 
tation that the part. expresses some prop- 
erty inherent in the subject. On the (di- 
rective) force of ém) in émirosd., sec notes 
on 2 Tim. i. 4. &5n hover] 
‘in heaviness ;’? see Matth. xxvi. 27, Av- 








74 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 27, 28. 


e an ‘ > rn Py Ld > uA oe ’ id 27 \ 
Upas, KAL GdNMovaY, OLoTL HKoVoAaTE OTL HoSévnceD. kal yap 


noSéevnoey TapatAncwov Savatw* adda 6 Oeds nrenoev avtov, 


> ee \ / > N ered I IY: \ f > \ 4 fal 
OvK avTov O€ MOVOV, GAA Kal Ene, (va py AVITHV ETL NOTH oXO. 


28 


meiogat Kad GOnu., Mark xiv. 33, éxdapu- 
Beioda kat adnu. This somewhat pe- 
culiar verb is explained by Buttmann 
(Zexil. § 6.13) as properly denoting 
‘ereat perplexity (tym. ML. datvew nad 
amopew, aunxaverv, Hesychius, aywniv) 
leading to trouble and distress of mind,’ 
and is to be referred not to a root adéw 
(Wiesing.), but, as Buttmann plausibly 
shows, to a, djmos; comp. adnuety, and 
see Symm., Eccles. vii. 16, where the 
LXX. have éxmdayys. How the Phi- 
lippians heard of this, and why Epaphr. 
was especially so grieved, is not ex- 
plained. 
27. kat yap jod.| ‘For he really 
was sick ;’ the report you beard was true. 
In this formula the «at is not otiose, but 
either with its conjunctive force (comp. 
notes on ch. iv. 12) annexes sharply and 
closely the causal member, ‘etenim’ 
(comp. Soph. Antig. 330), or with its 
ascensive force throws stress on the pred- 
ication, ‘nametiam,’ as here; see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 642, Hartung, Partik. 
kat, 3.1, Vol. 1. p.138. The remark of 
Hartung seems perfectly just that there 
is no inner and mutually modifying con- 
nection between the two particles (con- 
trast cal 5¢, notes on 1 Tim. iii. 10), but 
that their constant association is really 
due to the early position which yap regu- 
larly assumes in the sentence. 
TapatwAnaiov savate| ‘like unto 
death.’ There is here neither solecism 
(Van Heng.) nor brachyology (De W.). 
Tlapama. is the adverbial neuter (Polyb. 
11I. 33.17, with dat.; rv. 40. 10, abso- 
lutely ; comp. Herod. rv. 99), and like 
the more usual form mapamAnoiws (Plato, 
Pheer. p. 255 8) is associated with the 
regular dative of ‘ likeness or similarity ;’ 


, 5 ” TALE o bie Set y 
amrovoaloTépws ody eTemra avTov, wa iovtes avTov maw 


see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48.13. 8, Jelf, Gr. 
§ 594, 2, and the numerous exx. in Rost 
u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The gen. is rare; 
compare Plato, Soph. 217 B, Polyb. Hist. 
1. 23,6. The meaning is thus in effect 
the same as wéxpt Savdrou tHyyiev, ver. 
30, TAhowv adiketo Savdrov, Galen in 
Hippocr. Epid. 1. (cited by Wetst.), but 
the mode of expression is different. 
Auvmny ém) AUmny| ‘sorrow coming 
upon sorrow ;’ Avry arising from the 
death of Epaphr. in addition to the Adan 
of my own captivity, Bisp.; not as 
Chrys. riv dard tis TeAevTijs emt 77 Sid 
Thy apswotiay yevouevny aite, for, as 
Meyer justly observes, this would be 
clearly inconsistent with aAumérepos, ver. 
28. Ifthe second Ady had arisen from 
the sickness of Epaphr. it would have 
ceased when he was well enough to be 
sent away, and the apostle in that re- 
spect would have been not compara- 
tively, but positively, @Aumos. The read- 
ing of the text is supported by ABCDE 
FGL; major. of mss. (Lach., Tisch.), and 
differs only from the more usual ét Ava 
(Rec. with K ; Chrys., Theod.) in imply- 
ing motion in the accumulation ; comp. 
Psalm Ixviii. 27, Isaiah xxviii. 10, Ezck. 
vii. 26. ox | The subjune- 
tive is here appropriately used after the 
preeterite to mark the abiding character 
the sorrow would have assumed; see 
Winer, Gram. § 41.1, p. 257, and espe- 
cially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618. This 
remark, however, must be applied with 
great caution in the N. T. where, in com- 
mon with later writers, the use of the op- 
tative is so noticeably on the decline; 
see notes on Gal. iii. 19. 
28. omovdatotépws| ‘more dil 

gently than I should have done if ye had 


_ Cuar. IT. 29. dcp igh gh DQ Ld Sl Sal els 


75 


Xaphre Kayo aduTrotepos @. ™ mpocdéyecSe odw avdtow év Kupio 
30. &pyov tod Xp.| So Rec. with DEKL; al. (Zachm. with BFG; al., om. rod). 
Tisch. omits rob Xp. only with C,—certainly insufficient authority. 
mapaBorevoduevos|] The reading is doubtful. Sec. and Tisch. read mapaBovdev- 
oduevos with CKL; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al.; the meaning of which would 
be ‘quum male consuluisset;’ comp. Copt., ‘parabouleusthe’ [cited by Tisch. and 


ee 
Alf. for the other reading]; Syr. ¢&2© [sprevit], Goth. ‘ ufarmunnonds’ [oblivis- 


cens], all of which seem in favor of mapaBovA. On the contrary, the form mapaBoa. 
is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., and most modern editors with ABDEFGS; Clarom., 
Valg., Aug., Acth. (both), al.; and Lat. Ff.,—and rightly, the weight of author- 


ity and appy. unique use of the word being in manifest favor of the text. 


not heard, and been disquieted by the 
tidings of his sickness.’ In examples of 
this nature, which are common both to the 
N. T. and classical Greek, the comp. is 
not used for the positive, but is to be ex- 
plained from the context ; comp. 1 Tim. 
iii. 14 (notes), 2 Tim. i. 17 (notes), and 
see Winer, Gi. § 35. 4, p. 217. 

mdaAty may be connected with iddyres 
(Beza, Auth.), but is more naturally re- 
ferred to xapAre (Vulg., Luth.), it being 
the habit of St. Paul to place mdauw be- 
fore the verb, wherever the structure of 
the sentence will permit; contrast 2 Cor. 
x. 7, Gal. iv. 9, v.38. The same order 
is regularly adopted by St. Matthew; 
but St. Mark and St. John, who use the 
word very frequently, place it nearly as 
often after, as before, the verb with which 
it is associated ; compare the extremely 
useful work, Gersdorf, Bettridge, p. 491 
sq. &rAumrdtepos| ‘less 
sorrowful :’ the joy felt by the Philippi- 
ans will mitigate the sorrow (in his con- 
finement) of the sympathizing apostle ; 
eav ducts xalpynte, Kayo xalpw, Chrysost. 
The word aaum. is an Gm. Aeydu. in the 
N. T.; in classical writers it is occasion- 
ally found in a transitive sense ; comp. 
&Avtos olvos, Athen. 1.29. 

29. rpocdéxease obv] ‘ Receive 
him then ;’ in accordance with my inten- 
tion in sending him (#a«.7.A.). The 
ovv here perhaps slightly differs in mean- 


ing from the one immediately preceding. 
In ver. 28 it is slightly more inferential, 
here it relapses to its perhaps more usual 
meaning of ‘continuation and retrospect,’ 
Donalds. Gr. § 604. On the two uses 
of ody (the collective and reflexive), see 
Klotz, Devar: Vol. 11. p. 717, compared 
with Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 9 sq., 
and on its varieties of translation, Rev. 
Transl. of St. John, p. x. 

év Kuptao| ‘inthe Lord,’ almost, ‘in a 
truly Christian mode of reception,’ Christ 
was to be, as it were, the element in 
which the action was to be performed ; 
compare notes on ver. 19 and 24, and 
the caution in notes on Eph. iv. 1. 
madons xapas| ‘ali joy,’ ‘every form 
of it,’ not ‘summa Ietitia,? De Wette 
(on James i. 2); see notes on ch. i. 20, 
on Eph. i. 8, and compare 1 Pet. ii. 1, 
where this extensive force of ras seems 
made clearly apparent by the plural 
forms of the associated abstract accusa- 
tives. Tovs ToLlodT. K.T.A.] 
‘and such hold in honor ;’ ‘ such,’ scil. as 
Epaphroditus, who is the sort of speci- 
men of the class. On the use of the art. 
with rowodros to denote a known individ- 
ual or a whole class of such, see Kiihner 
on Xenoph. Mem.1. 5. 2, and notes on 
Gal. v.21. The formula @rimov exew, 
though not without parallel in classical 
Greek, e.g. évrip. jryetoSat (Plato, Phed. 
p- 64 D), worety, al., is more usually ex 


76 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 30. 


\ & a \ \ 7 >? t yg 80 &, 5 \ \ 
peTa TaoNS Yapas, Kal Tods ToLOUTOUS EvTimouS ExeTE, °° OTL Oia TO 
épyov Tod Xpictov wéxpe Navarou iHyywcev mapaPodevoduevos TH 
Wuyh, va dvarrAnpocyn TO tpav votépnua THs pds we EvTOUp- 


ylas. 


pressed with the adverb, e.g. évTimads 
exe, &yew, compare Plato, Republ. vit. 
p- 528 B, VIII. p. 548 A. 

80. 51a +d Epyov rod Xp.] ‘on 
account of the work of Christ.’ All the 
Greek commentators refer these and the 
following words to the danger arising 
from persecution confronted by Epaphr. 
at Rome in his endeavor to minister to 
St. Paul; eixds oty mavtds katappovijoa 
Kwdvvov, dote mpoocAdeivy cal bmnpeTh- 
cacsa, Chrys. The foregoing mention, 
however, of his sickness, and the subse- 
quent statement of the object contem- 
plated by the rd mapdBodov of his con- 
duct, seem to restrict the reference sim- 
ply to the service undertaken, and ren- 
dered by, Epaphroditus to the apostle, 
the performance of which exposed him 
to the danger of an all but mortal sick- 
ness. Td épyoy rod Xp. is thus not 7d 
evayy. Baumg.-Crus. (compare hill.), 
but the service which, by being rendered 
immediately to the apostle, became im- 
mediately rendered to Christ. 
méxXpt Savarov| ‘up to death;’ ex- 
tent of the danger; compare Job xxxii. 
2, Hyyice cis Sdvarov 7 Wux7H avrod, Isai. 
XXXViil. 1, euaraxicSyn €ws Savdrov; and 
still more expressly, 4 Macc. 7, péxpr 
Savdtov tas Bacdvous tmowewavras, and 
Polyzn. Strategem. p. 666 (Wetstein), 
wéxpt Savdrov paxotvra. On the force 
of uéxpr and &xpr, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 
9: mapaBor. TH Vuxnl 
‘having risked, hazarded his life (soul) ;’ 
‘tradens,’ Vulgate; ‘parabolatus de,’ 
Clarom.; ‘tradidit,? 2th. The form 
and meaning of this word has been well 
investigated by Meyer. It would appear 
to have been formed from the adj. za- 
pt Boros, ‘ venturesome’ (piAoktyduves kat 


mapaf8., Diod. Sic. xx. 3), like mepwepev- 
ecda (1 Cor. xiii. 4), from mépzepos, and 
to belong to a class of words in -etw 
rightly branded by Lobeck as ‘longe 
maxima pars invecticia,’ and designed to 
express the meaning of the adj. and aux- 
iliary ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 67, 591, 
and Winer, Gram. § 16.1, p. 85. The 
meaning will then be mapdBodos civat, 
and thus really but little different .in 
meaning from tapaBovA., at any rate 
as the Jatter is explained by Theophyl., 
emepiupev éavToy TG Xavdrw. Meyer com- 
pares mapaBdAAouot TH EuavTovU Kepadg, 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 238. The figurative 
reference to the stake (mapaBdAtoy or mra- 
pdBodoyv) which the appellant deposited, 
and if lost forfeited (Wordsworth), is 
scarcely so probable as the simpler ex- 
planation adopted above. The dative 
ux" is the dative ‘of reference,’ and 
with the true limiting character of that 
case expresses the sphere to which the 
action is confined ; see notes on Gal. i. 
20, and Winer, Gr. § 81. 6, p.193. On 
the relation of the ux} to animal life, 
and its intimate connection with the 
blood, see esp. Delitasch, Bibl. Psychol. 
Iv. 11, p. 195 sq., Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 1. 
2, p. 4. avatAnpoaon| ‘fill 
up, ‘supply ;? compare Col. i. 24 (avra- 
vawar.), and 1 Cor. xvi. 17.. The pri- 
mary and proper meaning of this com- 
pound verb is ‘ explere,’ ‘ totum implere’ 
(1 Thess. ii. 16), and thence by an easy 
gradation of meaning, ‘supplere,’ the 
ava denoting the addition, or rather 
making up, of what is lacking; comp. 
Plato, Conviv. p. 188 EB, ef rt é&€Aumoy 
ody epyov avarAnpGom. It is thus never 
merely synonymous with mAypody, but 
has regularly a reference more or less 


’ 


PHILIPPIANS: 


Cuap. III. 1. 


Rejoice, brethren ; beware 
of Judaizers who trust in 
the flesh. I have every 


Kupio. 


TT 


Ill. To rovrov, adergpot pov, yaipere ev 
\ > Ea 7, CPR 5] \ \ > 
TL avtTa ypadew viv, éuol pwev ovK 


cause to trust therein, but value nought save Christ, His righteousness, and the power of His resurrection. 


distinct to a partial rather than an en- 
tire vacuum. Such examples as Thucyd 
II. 28 (denuo), belong to another use of 
the prep. ; see especially Winer, de Verb. 
Comp. 111. p. 11 sq., and notes on Gal. 
vie.2: Td buoy boT. K.T.A.| 
‘your lack, i. e. that which you lacked, in 
your service to me ;”’ tuév being the gen. 
’ of the subject (6 tuets torephoare, The- 
oph.), and so a kind of gen. possessivus, 
and tijs Aectoupy., the gen. of the object 
in reference to which the torépnua was 
evinced, and so a gen. of what has been 
termed ‘the point of view :’ see Scheu- 
erl. Synt. § 17. 2, p. 127 sq., where these 
double genitives are briefly but clearly 
discussed ; comp. also Winer, Gr. § 30. 
3. 8, p. 172. There is therefore in the 
words no call to modesty or humility 
(Chrys.) on the ground that 6 mdvtes 
dpetAere udvos meroinrey (Theod.),—as 
this would imply a virtual connection of 
buav with Ae:roupylas, but only a gentle 
and affectionate notice of the complete 
nature of the services of the emissary. 
All that the Philippians lacked was the 
joy and privilege of a personal ministra- 
tion; this Epaphrod. by executing the 
commission with which he was charged 
(rijs mpds we Aerr. comp. verse 25) sup- 
plied, —and to the full. It would thus 
seem probable that the illness of Epaph- 
roditus was connected, not with his jour- 
ney, but with his anxious attendance on 
the apostle at Rome. See Meyer in loc., 
who has well explained the true mean- 
ing of this delicate and graceful commen- 
dation. 


Cuapter JIT. 1. 1d Aowrdy] ‘ Fi- 
nally ;’ preparation for, and transition 
to, the concluding portion of the Epistle, 
again repeated yet more specifically ch. 
iv. 8: compare 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 1 Thess, 


iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and for the gram- 
matical difference between this and the 
gen. Tov Aozrod, see notes on Gal. vi. 17. 
There is perhaps a slight difficulty in the 
fact, that subjects previously alluded to 
are again touched on, and that the per- 
sonal relation of the apostle to the Juda- 
ists is so fully stated in a concluding 
portion of the Epistle. Without having 
recourse to any arbitrary hypotheses 
(comp. Van Heng.), it seems enough to 
say, jirst, that the exhortations all as- 
sume a more generic form,— xalpere, as 
Wiesing. remarks, is the key-note ; and 
secondly, as Alf. suggests, that the men- 
tion of xatatou) leads to one of those 
digressions, expressively but too famil- 
iarly, termed by Paley, ‘ going off at a 
word,’ which so noticeably characterize 
the writings of the inspired apostle: see 
Hore Paul. ch. vi. 3. 

xalpere év Kuplo| ‘rejoice in the 
Lord ;’ their joy is to be no joy kata tov 
kécnov, hollow, earthly, and unreal, but 
a mvevmatixy Suundla (Theod.), a joy in 
Him; in whom ai dates airar Zxovur 
xapdy, Chrys. : compare ch. iii. 19, 24, 
29, and notes. Ta abrdal 
It is very doubtful to what these words 
refer. Out of the many opinions that 
have been advanced, three deserve con- 
sideration ; (a) that they refer to exhor- 
tations in a lost Epistle (Flatt, Mey.) ; 
(b) that they refer to oral communica- 
tions, whether made to the Phil. person« 
ally (Calv.), or recently communicated 
to Timothy and Epaphr. (Wieseler) ; 
(c) that they refer to the words just pre- 
ceding, viz. xalpete év Kupliw (Wie- 
sing., Alf.). Ofthese (a), whatever may 
be said of the general question (see notes 
on Col. iv. 16), must here be pronounced 
in a high degree doubtful and precarious, 
and is expressly rejected by Theodoret: 


78 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. III. 2. 


oxuynpov, viv de acparés. * Bree Tors Kivas, Br€reTE TOS 


the remark in Polye. Phil. § 3, ds Kat 
trwov tiv eypaey emortddrAas, seems 
fairly neutralized by ‘epistol ejus,’ ch. 
11, see Wies. Chron. p. 460, and comp. 
Wordsw. in loc. The second (b) is well 
defended by Wieseler, /. c., p. 459 sq., 
but implies an emphasis on +ypddeuw, 
which neither the language nor the order 
of the words in any way substantiates. 
The last (c) appears on the whole open 
to least objection, as xalpew does seem 
the pervading thought of the Epistle, ch. 
i. 4, 18, ii. 17, iv. 4, 10, and to have 
been the more dwelt upon as the actual 
circumstances of the case might have 
very naturally suggested the contrary 
feeling: compare Chrys. Hom. x. init., 
who, however, refers ta avt& to what 
follows, though admitting the appropri- 
ate nature of the precept. The gram- 
matical objection to the plural 74 aira 
(Van Heng.) is of no weight; the plural 
idiomatically refers to and generalizes 
the foregoing precept, hinting at the par- 
ticulars which it almost necessarily in- 
volves; sce Jelf, Gr. § 383, Kiihner on 
Xenoph. Mem. 111. 6. 6, and the exam- 
ples collected by Stallbaum on Plato, 
Apol. p. 19 p, and Gorg. p. 447 a. 

_6Kvnpdv] ‘grievous,’ ‘irksome ;’ com- 
pare Soph., Gd. Rer. 834, juiv ratr’ 
éxvnpd. The primary idea of dxvos and 
dxvnpds seems that of ‘ delay,’ or ‘ loiter- 
ing,’ whether from fear or sloth (Matth. 
xv. 26, Rom. xii. 11), and thence that 
which is productive of such feelings in 
others. The derivation is uncertain; 
perhaps from Sanscr. vak, with the no- 
tion of ‘bending,’ ‘stooping,’ or ‘ cow- 
ering’ (7), see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 
Il. p. 22. a&opares] ‘sure,’ 
‘safe;’ i.e. in effect, as Syr. paraphrases, 
Oo wT 


> hg > m 
% -_ (oom? 4% [propterea 
quod vos commonefaciunt]. The word 
is pressed both by Wieseler (/.c.) and 


De W., though on different sides, and is 
confessedly somewhat singularly used. 
It seems, however, suitable on the 
grounds alleged above, viz. that the 
Philippians might think they had every 
reason— not xalpew but aduuciv. Tlie 
quasi-causative sense is parallel to that 
in éxvnpév ; compare Joseph. Antig. 111. 
2.0% 

2. BrAémere] ‘look to,’ ‘observe ;’ 
‘videte,’ Vulg., Goth., Copt, not ‘ be- 
ware of,’ Auth. Ver., with Syr., this be- 
ing a derived meaning (Winer, Gram. 
§ 32. 2, p. 200): A&th. (Platt) unites 
both. This exhortation not unnaturally 
follows. The remembrance of the many 
things that wrought against 7d xalp. év 
Kup. rises before the apostle; one of the 
chief among which,—perhaps immediate- 
ly suggested by the word aopaaés, —he 
now enumerates. It was here that a 
opdAua Was in some degree to be feared. 
tovs kuvas| ‘the dogs,’ not so much, 
in the classical use of the term, in ref. to 
the impudence (Poll. Onom. v. 65), or 
the snarling and reviling spirit (Athen. 
x11. § 93), of those so designated,—as 
in the Jewish use, in ref. to the impure 
(Rey. xxii. 15), and essentially ethnic 
(Matth. xv. 27, comp. Schoettg. Hor. 
Vol. 1. p. 1145), and antichristian char- 
acter of these spiritual enemies of the 
Philippians ; omep of eSvixol kal rod 
@cod Kal Tod Xpiocrod aAAdSTpio Aoay, 
Chrys. Tovs Kakovs épy.] 
‘the evil workers ;’ compare 2 Cor. xi. 
13, pevdardacToAa, épydrat Sod; they 
were epydrat certainly, but the épyd¢eo- 
Sa: was ém kang, Chrys. The use of 
the article seems to show that there were 
some whom the apostle especially had 
in his thoughts. Thy 
katatouny] ‘the concision, Auth. ; 
i.e. ‘the concised’ (‘ curti Judai,’ Hor. 
Sat. 1. 9. 70), ‘ truncatos in cireumcis- 
ione,’ AXthiop. (Platt) appy. [but (2), as 


ee Se 


Cuap. III. 3, 4. 


\ > fe 4 \ / 
Kaxovs épyatas, PréreTe THY KaTaTOmHD. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


79 


3 nels yap éopev 1) 


/ c 4 a + x , BI) 
mepitoun, ot IIvedwats Ocod Ratpevovtes Kal Kavy@pevor ev 


Xpiot Incod Kai otk év capkt 


the word in the original has also ref. to 
excommunication ; compare Theod.]: 
a studiedly contemptuous paronomasia, 
see examples in Winer, Gr. § 68. 2, p. 
561. The apostle will not say mep:townh, 
as this, though now abrogated in Christ 
(1 Cor. vii. 19, Gal. vi. 15), had still its 
spiritual aspects (ver. 3, Rom. ii. 29, 
Col. ii. 11),—but kararouh, a mere 
hand-wrought, outward mutilation (com- 
pare Eph. ii. 11), which these false teach- 
ers gloried in and sought to enforce on 
others ; ov5ev GAAY ToLodow 7) Thy capicd 
katatéuvovow, Chrys. The reference to 
excommunication (Theod., Hammond) 
seems wholly out of place: indeed it is 
singular that such a very intelligible al- 
lusion should have received so many, 
and some such monstrous interpreta- 
tions, e.g. Baur, Paulus, p. 435. 

3. qmets yap «.7.A.| ‘ Por we are 
the circumcision ;’ reason for the designa- 
tion immediately preceding: ‘I say ra- 
tatoun, for you and I, whether circum- 
cised in the body or no, are the cireum- 
cision, wepiTout, in its highest, truest, and 
spivitual sense,—the circumcised in 
heart, 45 sb=y (Ezek. xliv.7);’ see 
Rom. ii. 29, and the good note of Fritz. 
in loc. On the spiritual aspects of tepi- 
7oun, see particularly Ebrard, Abendm. 
§ 2, Vol. 1. p. 23 sq., Kurtz, Gesch. der 
Alt, Bund. § 58. 3, p. 184 sq., where 
the subject is well discussed... 
of Tvevmari x.7.A.] ‘who by the 
Spirit of God are serving ;’ apposition by 
means of the substantival participle 
(compare Winer, Gr. § 45.7, p. 816), 
and indirect epexegesis of the preceding 
collective designation. The sentence 
might have been expressed by means of 
boot or ofrwes with the indicative, but 
the former would have too much limited 
the class, while the latter would have 


/ 4 f > \ av 
TETTOLSOTES, KQLTTED EY@ EX OV 


seemed too purely explanatory of the 
allusion, and so would have weakened 
the force of the antithesis. The dative 
Tivedu. is not the dative norme (Van 
Heng., compare notes on Gal. v. 16), 
but, as the context seems to require, the 
dative instrumenti, or what Kriiger per- 
haps more correctly terms, the ‘ dy- 
namic’ dat. (Sprachl. § 48.15), compare 
Rom. viii. 14, Galat. v. 5, 18, al.; the 
Holy Spirit was the influence under 
which the Aatpela was performed ; com- 
pare John iv. 23. The reading cod 
rests upon the authority of all the uncial 
MSS. except D!; more than 60 mss. ; 
Copt., Syr. (Philox), in marg,, al., and is 
adopted by all modern editors. It is to 
be regretted that Middleton (Gr. Art. p. 
371) should be led by a doubtful theory 
to oppose himself to such a preponder- 
ance of authority. It seems perfectly 
reasonable to consider Tveiua @cod as a 
proper name, and as haying a similar 
freedom in respect to the article; see 
Fritz. Rom. viii. 4, Vol. 11. p. 105, com- 
pare notes on (ral. v. 5. 
Aatpevortes| Absolutely, as in Luke 
11/37, Acts xxvi. 7, Heb. ix. 9) x12. 
For a sermon on this and the following 
verses, more, however, resembling a com- 
mentary, see Augustine, Serm. CLXIX. 
Vol. v. p. 915 sq. (ed. Migne). 

kal ov «.7.A.] ‘and not trusting in 
the flesh ;’ opposition to the preceding, 
though still under the vinculum of a 
common article: ‘we boast in Christ 
Jesus,—and in the flesh, the bodily and 
external, far from boasting as they did 
(Gal. .vi. 13), we go not so far even as to 
put trust.’ On the definite negation im- 
plied by od with the part., see Winer, 
Gr. § 55. 5, p. 430, Green, Gr. p. 120. 
apt does not specially and exclusively 
refer to circumcision, but, as the widening 


80 


meTrolsnow Kal év capkl. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. ITI. 4, 5, 


elzus Soxel &AXos TeTroSévat €v capKl, 


éy@ paiddrov' ° Tepito oKxtanpepos, ex yevous "Icparjr, purrs 


nature of the context seems to suggest, 
to the outward, the earthly, and the phe- 
nomenal; see Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. 
p. 541, Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 11. 2, Vol. 
I. p. 853 (Clark). 

4, xatiwep eyo «.t.a.] ‘although 
myself having,’ etc. ; concessive sentence 
introduced by xalmrep, qualifying the as- 
sertion which immediately precedes ; see 
Donalds. Gr. § 621. The construction 
involves but little difficulty. In the pre- 
ceding jets and ov metas. the apostle 
is himself included : lest this disayowal 
of memoid. év capx) might on his part be 
attributed to the absence or forfeiture of 
claims, rather than the renunciation of 
them, he passes at once by means of éyw 
to his own case, and proceeds as if the 
foregoing clause had been in the singu- 
lar ; ‘I put no trust in the flesh, though, 
as far as externals are concerned, I for 
my part have an inalienable and de jure 
right (@xwv) to do so.’ Thus, then, rat- 
mep has its proper construction with the 
part., and the concessive sentence a sim- 
ple and perspicuous relation to the fore- 
going clause. Kalrep, only used in 
this place by St. Paul (Heb. v. 8, vii. 5, 
SG 7s) 2ePet: if 12),- has its‘regular 
meaning, ‘ even very much’ (see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 723), the wép (zp?) 
giving to the simple xa} the idea of ‘ am- 
bitum rei majorem’ (Motz), or perhaps, 
more probably, the intensive meaning of 
‘through-ness’ or ‘completion;’ see 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 178. The meaning 
‘though,’ it need scarcely be said, arises 
from its combination with the participle. 
metwols. kal év gapxl] ‘confidence 
even in the flesh,’ ‘in it as well as év Xp.,’ 
the force of «ai being apparently descen- 
sive; see notes on Gal. iii.4. There is 
no reason for modifying the meaning of 
this word (‘gloriandi argumentum,’ 
Calv.), or that of the simple pres. part. 


éxwy (‘rem preeteritam facit preesentem,’ 
Van Heng.): mweroid. is simply xavxn- 
ots, mappnola, Chrys., and is actually 
now possessed by the apostle; he still 
has it, though he will not use it; ‘ ha- 
bens, non utens,’ Beng. 

dSoxe? is certainly not pleonastic (see 
examples in Winer, Gir. § 65. 7, p. 540), 
but may be either (a) in the opinion of 
others, —‘ videtur esse, quam vere esse 
dicere mavult,’ Fritz. Matth. iii. 9, p. 129, 
compare 1 Cor. xi. 16, where such a 
meiosis seems plausible; or (b) in his 
own opinion,— ‘ opinionem qua quis sibi 
placeat,’ Van Heng., as 1 Cor. iii. 18; 
viii. 8, al., and appy. in the great major- 
ity of cases in the N. T. The latter 
seems best to suit the presumptuous, sub- 
jective memofSnois of these Judaists, and 
does not seem at variance (Mey.) with. 
éya madadoy, scil. Sox memoid.-ev capkt, 
which follows: so Syr., and apparently 
Copt., Ath. (Platt). 

5. repitouyn oxrahpepos] ‘eight 
days old when circumcised, lit. in respect: 
of circumcision,’ dat. of ‘reference,’ Winer, 
Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, notes on Gal. i. 22. 
Ritualistic distinction, followed by his 
natal prerogatives, and (ver. 6) his per- 
sonal and theological characteristics. 
Circumcision on the eighth day (Levit. 
xii. 8) distinguished the native Jew, 
whether from proselyte or Ishmaelite, 
the latter of whom was circumcised after 
the thirteenth year, Joseph. Antig. 1. 12. 
2. The nom. mepitouy, which is found 
in Steph. 8, Elz. (1624, 1633), with some 
few mss., and apparently Chrys., Theod., 
is not correct: the abstract meprrou) is 
suitably used for the concrete in its col-: 
lective sense (ver. 3), but apparently 
never, as assumed here, for a single per- 
son, Winer, Gr. § 31.8 (ed. 5): so Van 
Heng., Meyer. ex yévous 
*Lap.] ‘of the race of Israel;’ gen. of 


Cuap. III. 5, 6, 


PHILIPPE IANS: 


81 


Benapty, ‘Efpaios ¢& “EBpatwv, cata vépov Papioaios, ° kata 


apposition or identity, Scheuerl. § 12. 1, p. 
82, 83: first of the three climactic dis- 
tinctions in regard to race, tribe, and 
lineage: ‘in censum nunc yenit splen- 
dor natalium,’ Van Heng. ’Ex. yév. “Ip. 
is exactly equivalent to IopanAirys in 
the very similar passages, Rom. xi. 3, 
2 Cor. xi. 22, and, as the designation 
*IopayA suggests (see Harl. on J’ph. ii. 
12, Meyer on Cor. xi. 22), stands in dis- 
tinction to Idumean, Ishmaelite, or eth- 
nic origin in a theocratic point of view ; 
compare also Trench, Synon. § 39. 

The wepir. showed that the apostle was 
no proselyte; the é« yév. “Iop. that he 
was ovdE mpoonAtTwy yovéwy, Chrys. in 
loc. Meyer and Alf. following Theodo- 
ret refer “Iop. to the mpdyovoyv Jacob, but 
this seems to mar the symmetry of the 
climax and the parallelism with Rom. 
xi. 3 and 2 Cor. xi. 22. 

pvaAs Beviauly| ‘of the tribe of 
Benjamin ;’ of one of the two most il- 
lustrious of the tribes, a true son of the 
amoula (Ezraiv.1). Some of the de- 
seendants of the other tribes were still 
existing, and though amalgamated un- 
der the common name, "Iovdato, could 
still prove their descent; compare Jost, 
Gesch. des Isr. Volkces, Vol. 1. p. 407 sq., 
and Winer, RWB. Article ‘ Stamme,’ 
Vol. 11. p. 515. The assertion of Chrys., 
ore rod Sokipwrépov mépous, TH yup fe- 
pewy ev TH KANPG Tabrns jv Tis puaijs, is 
apparently not historically demonstra- 
ble. ‘EBpatos éf ‘EBp.| 
‘a Hebrew of Hebrews,’ 2 Hebrew of He- 
brew parentage and ancestry, a Hebrew 
of pure blood ; eis adryy ryv piCay avéd- 
pauev, Theodoret: compare Dion.-Hal. 
III. p. 163, €ActSepar e& ércuSépwv, Po- 
lyb. Hist. 1. 59. 1, é« rupdyvov repv- 
xéra, and other examples in Kypke, 
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 115. It does not seem 
proper to limit it merely to Hebrew pa- 
rents on both sides (Mey., Alf.). Owing 


to the loss of private records in earlier 
times (comp. Ezra ii. 59, 62) and the 
confusions and troubles in later times, 
there might have been (even in spite of 
the care with which private genealogies 
were kept, Othon. Lex. Rabb. p. 76, 262) 
many a Benjamite, espec. among those 
whose families had left Palestine, who 
could not prove a pure Hebrew descent. 
Thus the Jew of*Tarsus, the Roman cit- 
izen, familiarly speaking and writing 
Greek, might naturally be desirous to 
vindicate his pure descent, and to claim 
the honorable title of “EBpaios (&ywSev 
Tay evdoKluwy lovdaiwy, Chrys.) for him- 
self and his forefathers ; compare Winer, 
RWB. Vol.1. p. 472, 475. That ‘Ep- 
patos may also have reference to lan- 
guage (Chrys.) is far too summarily de- 
nied by Meyer and Alford ; see Trench, 
Synon. § 89. That it has reference to 
locality (Palestinian not Hellenist) is 
every way doubtful: the assertion of Je- 
rome, by which it is supported, that St. 
Panl was born at Gischala in Palestine, 
appears only to be, as that writer himself 
terms it, a ‘fabula;’ see Neander, Plant- 
ing, Vol. 1. p. 79° (Bohn). 

Kata vémov k.T.A.] ‘in respect of 
the law (of Moses) a Pharisee ;’ 7. e. in 
regard of keeping or maintaining it, the 
prep. xar& being used throughout in its 
more general signification of ‘ quod atti- 
net ad;’ compare Winer, Gr. § 49. d, 
p-357. Néwos is here the ‘ Mosaic law:’ 
though it may occasionally have what 
Reuss calls ‘signification économique, 
tout ce qui tient a l’ancienne dispensa- 
tion’ (Théol. Chrét. 1v. 7, Vol. 1. p. 
66), this would be here out of harmony 
with the following diac. 7% év vduy. 
The present and two following clauses 
state the theological characteristics of 
the apostle, arranged perhaps climacti- 
cally, 2 Pharisee, a zealous Pharisee, and 
a blameless Pharisee; comp. Acts xxii. 

11 


82 PHILIPPIANS. 


ad 


Cuap. III. 6, 7. 


Sirov SidKwv tiv exkdnoiav, Kata Sikatoobyny THY év' vowm ryevd- 
pevos dpeumros. "ANN atwa iv por Képdn, Tadta Frynwat Sia 


8, xxvi.5, Gal. i. 14. 

6. Kata CHAov K.7.A.] ‘in respect 
of zeal — persecuting the Church ;’ comp. 
Gal.i. 13; said here perhaps not without 
a tinge of sad irony; even in this re- 
spect, this mournful exhibition of Judaist 
zeal, he can, if they will, set himself on 
a level with them. If they be Judaists 
he was more so. The present part. is 
not for the aor. (Grot.), nor used as the 
historical present (Van Heng.), nor asa 
substantive (the examples referred to by 
Mey. and Alf. being all associated with 
the art.), but is used adjectivally, standing 
in parallelism to the following epithet, 
&meutros, and predicatively in relation 
to a suppressed verb subst. that pervades 
the clauses; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, 
p. 812. The sense is the same, but 
grammatical propriety seems to require 
the distinction. dikatoa. 
Thy év vépe| ‘righteousness that is in 
the law ;’ righteousness specially so 
characterized, comp. notes on 1 Tim. iii. 
14,2 Tim.i.13. In ver. 9 the same idea 
is somewhat differently expressed : 81. 7 
éx véuov is righteousness that emanates 
Jrom the law, that results from its com- 
mands when truly followed; 8x. 7 év 
vé.w righteousness that resides zn it, and 
exists in coincidence with its commands. 
In the one case the law is the imaginary 
origin, in the other the imaginary sphere, 
of the dixaoctvn. All limitations of 
vouos, ¢.g. ‘specialia instituta,’ Grot., 
‘traditionem patrum,’ Vatabl., are com- 
pletely untenable. On this verse, and 
on Justification generally, see August. 
Serm. ccoxx. Vol. v. p. 926 sq. (edit. 
Migne). &meurros| 
“blameless ;’ ‘ proprie est is in quo nihil 
desiderari potest, %upos in quo nihil est 
quod reprehendas,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 29. 
The dueupta here spoken of, in accord- 
ance with the clearly external relations 


previously enumerated, must be referred 
to the outward and common judgment 
of men; ‘vite mez rationes ita plane 
composui ut nihil in me quisquam rep- 
rehendere aut damnare posset,’ Justini- 
ani in loc. 

7. &rival ‘the which things;’ scil. 
the qualities, characteristics, and prereg- 
atives alluded to in the preceding clauses, 
doris being used in reference to inde/fi- 
nitely expressed antecedents ; see notes 
on Gal. iv. 24. The general distinction 
between 6s and goers has rarely been 
stated better than by Kriiger; ‘ts is 
purely objective, doris generic and qual- 
itative,’ Sprachl. § 51. 8. 
hiv pot képdn] ‘were gains to me;’ 
not, ‘in my judgment,’ ‘non vera sed 
opinata lucra,’ Van Heng., wo being 
thus an ethical dative (Kriiger, Sprachil. 
§ 48. 6. 5),— but ‘to me,’ a simple dat. 
commodi ; they were really gains to St. 
Paul in the state previous to his conver- 
sion; compare Schoettg. in loc. The 
plural «ép$y is appropriately used in ref- 
erence to the different forms and charac- 
ters of xépdos involved in the foregoing 
prerogatives ; xépdos, in fact, considered 
in the plurality of its parts, Jelf, Gr. 
§ 355. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 44. 8. 5. 
Meyer compares Herod. 111. 71, mepiBaa- 
Aduevos EwuT@ Képdea; add Plato, Legg. 
IX. p. 862 c, BAdBas Ka Képdn. 
51a thy Xp.] ‘for Christ’s sake,’ more 
fully explained in ver. 8,9, and put, for 
the sake probably of emphasis, between 
the verb and its accusative. Chrys. here 
not inappropriately remarks, ef dia tov 
Xpiordy, ov pice: Cypla. 
hynwat (nulav] ‘I have considered 
(and they are now to me) as Joss;” con- 
trast jryoduat, ver. 8, and on the force of 
the perfect, which here marks ‘ actionem 
quz per effectus suos durat,’ see notes 
on Eph. ii. 8. Meyer, followed by Alf., 


? 


a. ee 


Cuap. III. 8. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


83 


4 \ 5 a 
Tov Xprorov %yulav. * GdrAda pev ody Kat ayodmat TdavTa Cyulav 
elvat Oud TO bTrEpexov THs yvooews Xpictod ’Incod tod Kupiov 
Jk \ ia a / \ ¢ n 4 Ly ts 
pov, dv dv Ta Tavta eCnwidSnv Kai Hyotpar cxtBadra civar, iva 


comments on the use of the sing. ¢nutay 
as marking ‘one loss in all things’ of 
which the apostle is here speaking. This 
is possible, but it may be doubted 
whether the singular is not regularly 
used in this formula (comp. examples in 
Kypke, Vol. 11.315, Elsner, Vol. 11. p. 
252, and especially Wetst. zn loc.), and 
whether the use of the plural would not 
suggest the inappropriate idea of ‘ pun- 
ishments,’ a prevalent meaning of (yulas : 
see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The form 
Gu. is supposed to be connected with 
‘damnum,’ and perhaps to be referred 
to the Sanscr. dam, ‘domitum esse,’ 
Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 261. 

8. GAAG mev ody KT. A.] ‘ Nay 

more, am indeed also, etc. ;’ ‘at sane qui- 
dem,’ Winer, Gr. § 53. 7, p. 392. In 
this formula, scarcely accurately ren- 
dered by ‘imo vero,’ Wiesinger (after 
Winer, ed. 5), or ‘but moreover,’ Alf., 
each particle has its proper force ; aAAa 
contrasts the pres. 7yoduet with the perf. 
frynweat, wey confirms, while ody, with its 
usual retrospective force, collects and 
slightly concludes from what has been 
previously said ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 663, and for the use of wey ody in 
adding some emphatic addition or cor- 
rection, comp. Donalds. Gr. §567. The 
continuative force of ev ofv, ‘cum qua- 
dam conclusionis significatione,’ is no- 
ticed by Herm. Viger, No. 342. 
The reading of Rec., uevodvye, rests only 
on A; very many mss.; Theoph., al., 
and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and 
Tisch. kal nyodpar] ‘I 
am also accounting ;? not only iynua but 
nyoduat, the kal, with its usual ascensive, 
and indirectly contrasting, force, bring- 
ing into prominence the latter verb: it 
is not with St. Paul merely a past but 
also a present action. 


wdvta| ‘all,’—in reference to the pre- 
ceding atwa jv x. 7. X., ‘illa omnia,’ 
Syr., Copt.; mavra, as its position shows, 
having no emphasis, but being used only 
to include ‘ guacunque antea Apostolo in 
lucris posita sunt,’ Van Heng. 

The fuller and regular construction, ¢y- 
mlav eivar (compare Weller, Bemerk. zum 
Gr. Synt. p. 8,—an ingenious tract), is 
here adopted on account of the difference 
in the order of the words. 

51a Td bmep. x. 7.A.] ‘for the excel- 
lency of the knowledge of Christ my Lord,’ 
—‘qui mihi super omnia est,’ Grotius, 
‘dominus mihi carissimus,’ Van Heng. ; 
compare Est. in loc. The article with 
the neuter adjectival participle seems de- 
signedly used to bring into prominence 
the specific characteristic or attribute of 
the yraous; it was not merely 8a thy 
brepéxoveay yvaow, but da 7d brep. tis 
yv., sce Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 42. d, p. 
156, and compare Jelf, Gr. § 436. y, who 
notices this use of the neuter part. as 
very characteristic of Thucydides, 1. 142, 
11. 63, 111. 43, al. This. nicety of lan- 
guage was not unobserved by Chrysost., 
who adverts to it to show that the real 
difference between the yv@o1s and the 
adévra (involving the yvéuos) with which 
«it was contrasted, lay solely in the bzep- 
ox} of the former; da 17d trepéxor, ov 
dia Td GAAOTpLov. Td yap bmepexov TOD 
duoyevoos tmepéxer. The deduction, 
however, is unnecessary if not untena- 
able. The knowledge of Christ admits 
no homogeneities, and transcends all 
comparisons. Th wht 
é¢nyu.] ‘I suffered the loss of them all ;’ 
not with any middle force but purely 
passive, the retrospective and inclusive 
7d mdvro, (kal Ta wdAcL, Kal T& TdpovTa, 
Chrys.) being the regular accus. of the 
(so termed) quantitative object; comp, 


4. PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. III. 9. 


Xpicrov Kepdijow, ° cal evpeS@ ev aita, pi Exov euiy Sixaro- 


auvny THY EK VO“OU, GAA THY dia TIcTEws Xpiotod, tiv ex Oeod 
os 


Matth. xvi. 26, and see Hartung, Casus, 
p- 46, comp. Winer, Gr. § 39. 1, p. 228. 
The verb is designedly stronger than the 
preceding fyodua Cnutay, and its object- 
accus. more comprehensive ; both suita- 
bly enhancing the climactic sequence of 
this noble verse. Kal hyov- 
fat okvB. eivas| ‘and count them to 
be dung;’ clearly not a parenthetical 
clause (Van Heng.), but, as the nature 
of the verse indicates, joined.to, and in 
sentiment advancing further than what 
has last. been said. The colon in some 
editions (Oxf. 1836, 1851), is very unde- 
sirable; even the comma (Mill, Griesb., 
Scholz, Tisch.) can be dispensed with. 
The somewhat curious word oxiBadov 
appears properly to mean ‘ dung’ (Syr., 
Clarom., Vulg.), e. g. Alex.-Aphrodit. 
Probl. 1.18, é&iao1 oxvB. kad odpov, and 
thus is probably to be connected with 
oxa@p (not oxdp), Sen. cxatds ; see Lo- 
beck, Pathol. p. 92, Benfey, Wurzellex. 
Vol. 11. p. 172.. The old derivation, 
kvot Badly, 2. e. kvoiBadov (Suid., Ltym. 
M.) or és kivas, is still defended by Pott, 
Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 295. On the 
various derivative meanings, ‘ refuse,’ 
“quisquilias’? (Goth., ®th.), etc., see 
Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 978, 
the numerous exx. collected by Wetst. 
in loc., and the smaller collections of 
Kypke, Elsner, and Loesner. 

tva Xp. kepdjaw| ‘that I may gain 
Christ ;? purpose of the 7y. oxvB. eivat, 
antithetically expressed with reference 


to the previous (nuodoSa. Meyer and” 


Alf. properly object to the bleak interpr. 
of Grot., ‘Christum, 7. e. Christi favo- 
rem:’ it is curious that it should have 
been adopted by so good an expositor as 
Hammond. To ‘gain Christ’ is, to use 
the exquisite language of Bp. Hall, ‘ to 
lay fast hold upon Him, to receive Him 
inwardly into our bosoms, and so to 


make Him ours and ourselves His, that 
we may be joined to Him as our Head, 
espoused to Him as our Husband, incor- 


porated into Him as our Nourishment, 


engrafted in Him as our Stock, and laid 
upon Him as a sure Foundation,’ Christ 
Mystical, ch. v1. —a treatise of the lofti- 
est spiritual strain. 

9. edpeds@ ev adre| ‘be found in 
Him ;’ in Him, as the sphere and ele- 


ment of my spiritual being; comp. notes | 


on Eph. ii. 6, Gal. ii. 17. EépeS@ must 
not be regarded as a mere periphrasis for 
the verb subst.; ‘ existam sive sim,’ Gro- 
tius (see contra Winer, Gr. § 65. 8, /p. 
542), nor as referring solely to the judg- 
ment of God (Beza), nor yet as antithet- 
ical to being lost (Bp. Hall), but simply 
and plainly to the ‘judicium universale ” 
(Zanch.), ‘the being and being actually 
found to be ev avrg,’ both in the sight of 
God and his fellow men; sce notes on 
Gal. ii.17. Hn Exwr| 
Dependent on the preceding ta, and as- 
sociated with the preceding edpeS@ as a 
predication of manner. Tischend. and 
Lachm. both remove the comma after év 
avrg, thus leaving it doubtful whether 
kh Exov may not form a portion of an 
objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584 


sq.), ‘be found in Him not to have, ete.’ 


—a construction that is grammatically 
defensible (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. 56. 
7.2), but certainly not exegetically sat- 
isfactory : év avr@ would then be wholly 
obscured ; comp. Meyer in loc. 

éunyv Sen. x. 7. A.) ‘my righteousness 
that is of the law ;’ 7. e. such righteous- 
ness as I strove to work out by attempt- 
ing to obey the behests of the law, rp 
idlay dixaocdvnv, Rom. x.3. The mean- 
ing of diac. is here slightly different 
in its two connections. With éuhy it 
implies an assumed attribute of the apos- 
tle, with é« véuou it implies a righteous- 


Cuapr. III. 10. 


PHILIPPIANS. 85 


al / a rn ‘ .Y AN 
Sixatocbvny ert TH TioTe, 1 Tod yvovar adtov Kat THY Sivapw 


ness reckoned as such, owing toa fulfil- 
ment of the claims of the law. On the 
force of é« in these combinations (‘im- 
mediate origin,’ etc.), see notes on Gal. 
ii. 16. thy 51a mwiot. Xp] 
‘that which is through faith in Christ ;’ 
of which faith in Christ is the ‘ causa 
medians,’ and which, as the following 
words specify, comes immediately from 
God as its active source and origin; 
compare Waterl, on Justif. Vol. v1. p. 4 
note, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1.1, p. 87. On 
the meaning of wior. Xp. and the dog- 
matical import of dia mior., see notes on 
Gal. ii. 16 (comp. notes on Col. ii. 12), 
where both expressions are briefly dis- 
cussed ; and also the short but extremely 
perspicuous remarks of Hamm., Pract. 
Catech. 1. 4, who well observes that our 
‘faith itself cannot be regarded, in the 
strict sense of the term, as a logical in- 
strument of our justification, but as a 
condition and moral instrument without 
which we shall not be justified,’ p. 78 (A.- 
C. Libr.) ; so also with equal perspicuity 
Forbes, Jnstruct. vi1r. 23.22. On the 
true doctrine of justification see espec. 
Hooker, on Justif. § 6 sq., and for the 
opposing tenets of the Romanists the 
clear statements of Mohler, Symbolik, 
§ 15, p. 148 sq., § 22, p. 215, 216. 

éml-rH mlaorec| ‘based on fuith;’ not 
‘sub hdc conditione ut habeas,’ Fritz. 
(Rom. Vol. 1. p. 46), but ‘super fide,’ 


~ Copt., Beng., mloris being the founda- 


tion on which it firmly and solidly rests. 
On the force of ém) with the dative, which, 
roughly speaking, denotes a more close, 
while with the gen. it expresses a less 
close connection (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 
41. 1), see notes on ch. i. 3, and esp. on 
Eph. ii. 20,— where, however, observe 
that (in ed. 1) the words ‘former’ and 
‘latter’ have become accidentally trans- 
posed. Numerous examples of ém) with 
both cases (apparently interchangeably) 
will be found in [Eratosth.] Catasterismi, 


ap. Gale, Mythol. p. 99-135, but the work 
is of very doubtful date. The 
connection is not perfectly clear; éml 77 
miore: has been joined, (a) with the suc- 
ceeding Tod yvdvu, Auth. (Pol., but not 
Platt), Chrys., and, with a different ap- 
plication, Calv., Beng.; (b) with the 
remotely preceding €xw#v, Mey.; (c) with 
the immediately preceding dixcaoodyny, 
Vulg., Copt., Goth. Of these (a) is not 
tenable ; see below on verse 10; (b) is 
improbable and harsh, owing to the dis- 
tance of ém) tH m. from éxwy ; (c) on the 
other hand is grammatically defensible, 
and eminently simple and perspicuous. 
As we may say SicaodoSai em) Ti Tio et, 
so Six. em) TH mor. without the art. is 
permissible, see Winer, G7. § 20. 2, p. 
123, and comp. notes on Eph. i. 15. 

10. rod yvavarl ‘that I may know 
Him,’ Auth. Ver.; infinitive of design 
dependent on the preceding edpedsa, not 
on p41) €xwv (Mey.), which seems to give 
an undue prominence to the participial 
clause. The reference of rod yvaéva 
(=va yv@) to ver. 8, as Winer, De W., 
al., seems to disturb the easy and natu- 
ral sequence of thought; see Wiesinger 
and Alf. zn loc. On the infin. ‘of de- 
sign,’ which fails under the general head 
of the gen. of subjective relation (compare 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47, 22. 2), and is by 
no means without. example in classical 
Greek (Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. 2, p. 357, 
Madvig, Synt. § 170 c), see Winer, Gr. 
§ 44. 4, p. 291, where other examples 
are noticed and discussed, ‘The con- 
struction of rod yyavat with ém 77 rlorT., 
if (a) as equivalent to &cTe yvavar dia 
Ths mictews (Theod., Chrys.}, is op- 
posed to the order of words, and to all 
rules of grammatical analysis,— if ()) as 
a definitive gen., ‘so as to know Him’ 
(Calv., Beng.), is a construction of mlo- 
mis not found in the N. T.; see Meyer 
and Alf. The knowledge here 
mentioned, as Meyer rightly observes, is 


, 


86 PHILTIPPIANS. 


Cuap. III. 10, 11. 


THS avacTdcews avTOD Kal THY KOWaviay TOY TAaYnWaTwY avTod, 


4 a y s > a 11; , ? \ 
ouppophilomevos TO Savat@ avoid, €l TWS KATAVTIOW Els THY 


éEavadotacw TV EK veKpOD. 


not merely speculative, but practical and 
experimental ; see especially Beck, See- 
lenl. 1. 9, p. 22, comp. Andrewes, Serm. 
Vol. 11. p. 204 (A.-C. Libr.). 

kal thy Sbv. x. 7. A.| ‘and the power 
of Iis resurrection ;’ fuller explanation 
of the preceding airdy, under two differ- 
ent aspects, the Lord’s resurrection, and 
the Lord’s sufferings. 
avaor. is clearly not ‘ potentia qua exci- 
tatus fuit,’ Vatabl. (avac7. being a gen. 
objecti), but, ‘ qua justos ad immortalita- 
tem revocabit,’ Just.,— avacr. being the 
gen. originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 23) ; 
‘a virtue or power flowing from Christ’s 
resurrection, called by the apostle wis 
resurrectionis, Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11. 
p- 204 (A.-C. Libr.) ; compare Theoph. 
As the resurrection of Christ has at least 
four spiritual efficacies, viz. (a) as quick- 
ening our souls, Eph. ii. 5; (b) as con- 
firming the hope of our resurrection, 
Rom. viii. 11, 1 Corinth. xv. 22; (c) as 
assuring us of our present justification, 
Rom. iv. 24, 25; (d) as securing our 
final justification, our triumph over 
death, and participation in His glory, 
2 Corinth. iv. 10 sq., Colos. iii. 4,—the 
context can alone determine the imme- 
diate reference. Here the general con- 
text seems to point to (c) or (d), the 
present verse and ver. 11, perhaps more 
especially to the latter. On the fruits of 
Christ’s resurrection, see Pearson, Creed, 
Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 313, Usher, Body of 
Div. ch. xv. ad fin., and on our justifi- 
cation by Christ’s resurrection compared 
with that by His death, the admirable 
remarks of Jackson, Creed, xv. 16. 8. 
thy cotvovilay «.7. 2.) * the fellow- 
ship of His sufferings ;’ further exempli- 
fication of the experimental knowledge 
of Christ, regarded as objective and pres- 
ent, suggested by the preceding clause, 


The Stvauis THs 


9 
: 


of which the reference was rather subjec- 
tive and future. It is only in a partici- 
pation in His sufferings that there can be 
one in His resurrection and glory: e 
Tolvuy wy éemorevouey OTL cvuBaciActoo- 
Mev ovK Gy ToCadTa kal Ta TOLADTA émaoxXo- 
pev, Theoph. ; compare Rom. viii. 17, 2 
Tim.ii.11. This partnership in Christ’s 
sufferings is outward and actual (Chrys., 
al.), not inward and ethical (Zanch.) ; 
it is a sharing in the sufferings He suf- 
fered, a drinking from the cup He drank ; 
comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 1 Pet. iv. 13, notes 
on 2 Timothy, ii. 11, and Reuss, Thél. 
Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p.. 224. 
cuupmoporCdm. Kx. 7. A] 
formed unto EHis death,’ t. e. ‘by being, or 
while I am, conformed unto His death, 
even as I now am:?’ pres. participle logi- 
cally dependent on the preceding yv@vax ; 
see notes on Eph. ili. 18, iv. 2. This 
conformation, then, is not ethical, ‘ ut 
huic mundo emortuus sim quemadmo- 
dum Christus mortuus est in cruce” Van 
Heng., but, as the connection and tenor 
of the passage require, actual, and as the 
pres. suggests, even now more especially 
going on: ‘ut cognoscam communica- 
tionem passionum ejus, in quam yenio, 
et que mihi contigit dum per passiones 
et mortis pericula qua pro nomine ejus 
sustineo, conformis efficior morti ejus,’ 
Estius. The reading is slightly 
doubtful ; Rec. has cuppoppodmevos with 
D?EKL; al.; Chrysost., Theod.: the 
rarer form in the text is adopted by 
Lachmann and Tisch. with ABD?'; 17. 
67 * * 71; Orig. {mss.), Bas., Maced., 
to which the incorréct cvvpopre:Copevos 
of F and G may lend some slight weight. 
11. ef mws| ‘if by any means,’ ‘si 
quomodo,’ Vulg., Clarom.; an expres- 
sion, not se much of doubt, as of humil- 
ity, indicating the object contemplated in 


‘ being con- . 


LE — 


Cuap. III. 12. 


I have not yet obtained, but 
am eagerly pressing for- 
ward : in this imitate me. - 


oupmopgil. kK. T.A.; ov Sappa yap, pnoty, 
ovmw otws, eramewoppdver, Theoph. : 
see also Neander, Phil. p. 43. In this 
formula, when thus associated with verbs 
denoting an action directed to a particu- 
lar end, the idea of an attempt is con- 
veyed (‘nixum fidei Pauline,’ Beng.), 
which may or may not be successful ; 
compare Acts xxvii. 12, Rom. i. 10, xi. 
14, and see Fritz. Rom. xi. 14, Vol. 11. 
p- 47, Hartung, Partik. ci, 2.6, Vol. 11. 
p- 206, and for a few examples of the 
similar use of si in Latin, Madvig, Lat. 
Gr. § 451. d. KaTAVTHOW 
eis] ‘may attain unto ;’ not indic. fut., 
as in Rom. i. 10, and perhaps xi. 14 
(Mey.), but aor. subj. (Alf.), as the fol- 
lowing words, «i xa) kataAdBw, seem to 
suggest. On the force of ef with the subj. 
(‘ubi nihil nisi conditio fpsa indicetur’), 
now admitted and acknowledged in the 
best Attic Greek, see Herm. de Part. tv, 
1. 7, p. 97, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
499 sq.; comp. Winer, Gir. § 41, 2. ¢, p. 
263. The expression katayray eis, ‘ per- 
venire ad,’ is used in the N. T. in con- 
nection with places (Acts xvi. 1, xviii. 
19, 24, al.), persons (1 Cor. x. 11, xiv. 
86), and ethical relations (Acts xxvi. 7, 
Eph. iv. 13), in which last connection it 
is also found with ém several times in 
Polyb.; e. g. with gen., Hist. x1v. 1.9 
(but ?reading), with accus., 111. 11. 4, 
mre. O11; carve ols 92 Dhewret. of Vian 
Heng. to time, ‘si perveniam ad tempus 
hujus eventi,’ is thus wholly unneces- 
sary, if indeed not also lexically untena- 
ble. éfavdortraciv K.7.A.] 
‘ the resurrection from the dead ;’ 7. ¢., as 
the context suggests, the first resurrec- 
tion (Rev. xx. 5), when, at the Lord’s 
coming the dead in Him shall rise first 
(1 Thessalon. iy. 16), and the quick be 
eaught up to meet Him in the clouds 
(1 Thess. iv. 17); compare Luke xx. 
35. The first resurrection will include 


? 


EEO TEE TANS: 


2 Ovx dre 


87 


Hon éraBov 7 On TeTENE@pat, 


only true believers, and will apparently 
precede the second, that of non-believers 
and disbelievers, in point of time; see 
Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 571, and the singu- 
lar but learned work of Burnet, on the 
Departed, ch. rx. p. 255 (Transl.). Any 
reference here to a merely ethical resur- 
rection (Cocceius) is wholly out of the 
question. The double compound 
ekavactacis, an am. Aeydu. in N. Test. 
(comp. Polyb. Hist, 111. 55. 4), does not 
appear to have any special force (thy é- 
dotov, Thy ev vepeAus ekapow, The- 
ophyl.), but seems only an instance of 
the tendency of later Greek to adopt 
such forms, without any increase of 
meaning, see Thiersch, de Vers. Alex. 11. 
1, p. 83, and notes on Eph. i. 21: comp. 
Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 316 (edit. 
Burt.). Tv éx verp@y] Dis- 
tinct and slightly emphatic specification 
of the etavdor.; see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 
14,2 Tim. i. 13, where, however, the first 
art., as being associated with a word of 
known meaning and common occurrence, 
is omitted after the prep. The reading 
is slightly doubtful. Meyer defends Ree. 
efay. Tav vexpov (KL; al.), on the 
ground that elsewhere St. Paul regularly 
omits é«; these internal considerations 
however must yield to such distinct pre- 
ponderance of external authority as 
ABDE; 10 mss.; Syr., and great ma- 
jority of Vv.; Bas., Chrysost., al.: so 
Lachm., Tisch. 

12. obx Sri] ‘ (I say) not that:’ not 
so much in confirmation of what pre- 
cedes (Theoph.), as to avoid misappre- 
hension, and by his own example, to con- 
firm his own exhortations, ch. ii. 3, com- 
pare iii. 15; ‘nolite, inquit, in me falli; 
plus me ipse novi quam vos. Si nescio 


-quid mihi desit, nescio quid adsit,’ Au- 


gust. On the use of odx dri scil. od« Epa 
dri, in limiting a preceding assertion or 
obviating a misapprehension, see Har- 


A 


88 PHILIPPIANS. 


Siwodkw 88 ei cab KataraBo, éf 6 kal kateanudSyv bro Xpictod. 


tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 154, compare 
Herm. Viger, No. 253. 

nin €rxaBor| ‘L have already attained.’ 
The object of ZAaBov is somewhat doubt- 
ful. The two most natural supplements 
are (a) Xpiordv, Theod., implied from 
what precedes; (b) BpaBetov, Chrys., re- 
flected from what follows. Of these (b) 
is to be preferred, as the diéxw immedi- 
ately following seems to show that the 
favorite metaphor from the stadium was 
already occupying the apostle’s thoughts. 
The simple @Aafor thus precedes, almost 
‘generaliter dictum,’ to be succeeded by 
the more specific kataAdBw. On the 
force of #5n and its distinction from. viv, 
see on 2 Tim. iv. 6. 

reterceiwuat| ‘have been made per- 
feet:’ more exact explanation of the 
semi-metaphorical ZAgBov, and result of 
it. The preceding aor. is thus not to be 
‘regarded as a perfect, but as represent- 
ing a single action in the past (‘ita ut 
non definiatur, guam late pateat id quod 
actum est’), Fritz. de Aoristi Vi, p. 17), 
which the succeeding perf. explains and 
expands ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 5, p. 
257. That the teAcotcda has here an 
ethical reference, ‘to be spiritually per- 
fected,’ not agonistical (Hamm., Loes- 
ner, p- 355), ‘to be crowned or receive 
the reward,’ is almost self-evident: com- 
pare Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 16, Vol. 
11. p. 182. The verb is only used here 
by St. Paul (2 Cor. xii. 9 is more than 
doubtful), though common in Hebrews 
and elsewhere in the N. T. The ancient 
gloss 7 45n Sedixalwuar inserted after €a- 
aBov DIEFG; Clarom.; Iren., al., indi- 
rectly shows the meaning here ascribed 
to TeTeAciwmat. didKw Sé| 
“but I am pressing onward ;’ not ‘sed 
persequor,’ Beza, but ‘ [per]-sequor au- 
tem,’ Vulg., with a more just regard to 
the force of the particle: see Hand, 
Tursell. Vol..1. p. 559. In sentences of 


Cuap. III. 12. 


this nature, where a negative has pre- 
ceded and the regular aAAd (sondern) 
might have been expected (comp. Don- 
alds. Cratyl. § 201) it will be nearly al- 
ways found, that the connection of the 
two clauses is oppositive rather than ad- 
versative ; i.e. that in the one case (&AAd) 
the preceding negation is brought into 
sharp prominence and contrasted with 
what follows, while in the other (€) the 
negation is almost left unnoticed, and 
the sentence continued with the (so to 
Say) connective opposition that so regu- 
larly characterizes the latter particle ; 
see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 360, and 
compare Hand, l. c. The 
metaphor is obviously taken from the 
stadium (Loesn. Obs. p. 355, érayéuds 
eit, Theoph.), and the verb diéxw, as in 
the examples cited by Loesn., and as 
also in ver. 14, seems to be here used 
absolutely, kata omovdyy édatvew, Pha- 
vor. ; see examples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
11. p. 317, Buttmann, Lezil. § 40, p. 232 
(Transl.): so, distinctly, Syr., Copt., 


‘curro,’ and apparently Chrys., who re- 


gards it as only differing qualitatively 


(ue® Bcov tévou) from tpéxw; see also 
“Theophyl. in loc. If didkw be regarded 


as transitive, the object of dié«w will be 
the same as that of karaAdBw, scil. the 
BpaBetoy implied in the eg é: compare 
ith. (Platt). The former construction, 
however, seems more simple and natu- 
ral, ei kal KaTtarddBol 
‘if I might also lay hold on ;’ the kad con- 
trasting xaraAdBw not with the more re- 
mote éAaBov (Mey.), but with the imme- 
diately preceding diékw (Alf): see Ec- 
clus. xi. 10, xxvii. 8, comp. Rom. ix. 
30, Lucian, Hermot. § 77, Cicero, Off. 1. 
81. 110, in all which passages there 
seems a contrast more or less defined 
between the didcew and xcaradapBdver, 
the ‘sequi’ and ‘ assequi;’ compare 
Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 355. On the 


: 
: 


Cuap. IIT. 18, 14. 


PRED VP PAN §: 


89 


8 Gdedpoi, eyo euavtov ot roytCouar kateiinpévar: 1 év Oé, Ta 


force of ei xal see notes on chap. ii. 17. 
Whether caraddBw (‘assequar,’ Rom. ix. 
30, 1 Cor. ix. 24) is to be taken abso- 
lutely or transitively will depend on the 
meaning assigned to é@’ @. 

ed 6 kal cated. ‘that for which also 


I was laid hold on ;’ so Syriac Sopa 
Oo >m 
mAS{So9 [id cujus causi], and sim. 


Atthiopic (Platt),—the only two ver- 
sions that make their view of this pas- 
sage perfectly clear. “Ed. ¢ has here 
received several different interpretations. 
Taken per se it may mean ; (a) quare, 
like av¥ dy (Luke y. 3), at the begin- 
ning of a sentence ; comp. Diodor. Sic. 
XIX. 9, ef’ & Toy pev wetCov Kadovor Tad- 
pov x. T. A.3 (B) €0 quod, propterea quod, 
scil. ém) roitTw, 671 = SidTe (apparently 
Rom. v. 12, 2 Corinth. v. 4), expressed 
more commonly in the plural é¢’ ofs in 
classical Greek ; see Thom. M. p. 400, 
ed. Bern., and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 299 ; 
(y) sub qué conditione, cujus causa, almost 
‘to which very end,’ Hammond (see 
1 Thess. iv. 17, Gal. v. 13, and notes, 
also examples in Lobeck, Phryn. p. 475), 
@ being here regarded as the relative to 
a suppressed antecedent rodro, the obj. 
accus. of kataAdBw : comp. Luke v. 25. 
Of these (8) and (y) are the only two 
which here come into consideration. The 
former is adopted by the Greek commen- 
tators, Beng., Meyer, al., and deserves 
consideration, but introduces a reason 
where a reason seems hardly appropri- 
ate. The latter is adopted by Syriac, 
Copt., De W., Neand., and apparently 
the bulk of modern expositors, and seems 
‘most in harmony with the context: the 
apostle was laid hold on by Christ (at 
his conversion, Horsley, Serm. xv11., not 
necessarily as a fugitive in a race, Chrys., 
Hamm.) with ref. to that,—to enable him 
to obtain that, which he was now striv- 


ing to lay hold of. It may be 
observed lastly that «a does not refer to 
a suppressed éyé, nor to karted. (AIf.), 
but to the preceding relative, which it 
specifies, and tacitly contrasts with other 
ends which might be conceivable; ‘ for 
which, too, for which very salvation, I 
was apprehended,’ etc.; comp. 1 Cor. 
xiii. 12, naSas kad éreyvdoSny, and see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. 

13. 45e¢Aqpolt| Earnest and emphatic 
repetition of the preceding statements, 
under somewhat hortatory aspects, neg- 
ative and positive: in the first portion 
of the verse the apostle disavows all self- 
esteem and self-confidence,— not perhaps 
without reference to some of his converts 
(tatTa mpos Tovs peyadoppovoiyTas éml 
Tots #3n KaTopSwetor Aeyet, Theod.) ; 
in the second portion and verse 14 he 
declares the persistence and energy of 
his onward endeavor; évds eius pdvou, 
Tov Tots Eumpoodev émexretverdat, Chrys. 
éuautTodyv ov Aoyl¢. x. 7. A.] ‘do not 
esteem MYSELF to have apprehended :’ 
the juxtaposition of éy& and the spec- 
ially added éuavrdy (see Winer, Gram. 
§ 44. 3, p. 287) not only mark the self- 
ish element which the apostle disavows 
(Mey.), but declare his own deliberate 
judgment on his own case; comp. Beng. 
The verb AoyiCoua: is rather a favorite 
word with St. Paul, being used (exclud- 
ing quotations) twenty-nine times in his 
Epp., and twice only (Mark xi. 31 is 
very doubtful) in the rest of the N. T. 

14. vy dé] ‘but one thing L do,’ scil. 
moi, the general verb in the first clause 
being inferred from the special verb that 
follows; see Winer, Gir. § 66. 1. b, p. 
546. The ellipsis is variously supplied 


ee 
(Nye [novi] Syriac; gpovri{w or pe- 
py, Ccumen. 2; éari, Beza; didkw, 


Flatt), evaded (Gothic), passed over 
(ZBthiopic), or left nakedly as it stands 


12 


90 PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. III. 14. 


\ ’ f > i tal BY: ” ’ , 
fev OTlowm emihavSavopevos, Tols € Ew poo Sev ETT EKTELVOMEVOS, 


Kata cKoTrOV SiwKw él TO BpaBelov THs dvw KrAjcEws TOD Ocod 


14. emi] So Rec., Griesb., with DEFGKL; majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod. 
On the other hand, Zachm. and Tisch. read eis with AB; 17. 73. 80; Clem., Ath., 
al. (Mey., Alf.), apparently on the ground of ém being an interpretation of the e7s 
of ‘destination.’ As it can scarcely be said that émt, especially with the meaning 
anciently assigned to BpaB. (e. g. Theod.), is a much easier expression than eis, it 
does not here seem safe to reject the reading of so many uncial MSS. 


(Vulg., Copt.). The most simple and 
natural supplement is that adopted 
above, as Theoph., Gicum., and most 
modern expositors; see Jelf, Gr. § 895. 
ce. Meyer strongly urges the participial 
form roiéy, but this surely mars the em- 
phasis, and obscures the prominent Side, 
to which the ellipsis seems intended to 
direct attention. TH Mev 
éwiocw éwta.| ‘forgetting the things 
behind;’? not the renounced Judaical 
prerogatives, ver. 5 sq. ( Vorst.), nor the 
deeds done under their influence, but, 
as the metaphor almost unmistakably 
suggests, the portions of his Christian 
course already traversed, ‘the things at- 
tained and left behind,’ Fell; ev wrod, 
evos ylyvouat udvov, Orws del mpokdmrotut’ 
emaAavadvouat Tay KaTopIwudTwy Kal api- 
Nut avTa Omigw, Kad ovdé péuynua bAws 
avtay, Theoph.; compare Chrys. The 
special reference of 'Theod. to o? rept Tod 
Knpvyuaros mévot is unsatisfactory, as ob- 
securing the general and practical teach- 
ing which this vital passage conveys ; 
kal jets wh Boov jyioapey Tis. apeTiis 
dvadoyildueda, GAN Boov juiy Aelret, 
Chrys. In the verb émaavs. 
(middle, —of the enward act, Scheuerl. 
Synt. p. 295; act. non occ.) the preposi- 
tion seems to mark the application of the 
action to,and perhaps also its extending 
over (accus.) the object, a little more 
forcibly than the simple verb (An3# 7a- 
padodyvat, Chrys.) ; comp. Rost. u. Palm, 
Lex. s. vy. érl, C. ce, dd. It is occasion- 
ally, as here, found with the accus. ; the 
simple form always with gen.; compare 


Jelf, Gr. § 512, Thom. M. p. 348 (ed. 
Bern.). Tots 5& 2umpoc- 
Sev ément.| ‘but stretching out after 
the things that are in front:’ more dis- 
tinct emergence of the image of the 
racer. The 7a éumpoodey are the diavaot 
(to use the language of Chrys.) which 
are yet to be passed over in the Chris- 
tian course, and are the successive ob- 
jects (dat. of direction, see Hartung, Ca- 
sus, p. 83) toward which the action of 
the éwextew. is directed: good works 
done in faith are the successive strides ; 
Andrewes, Serm. Wol. m1. p. 95 (A.-C. 
Libr.). In the double compound érexr. 


the ém} marks the direction, éx the pos-. 


ture, in which the racer stretches out his 
body toward the objects before him; 6 
yop emektTewomuevos ouTOs ear 6 Tos 1é- 
das kairo. TpéxovTas TH AoITG THmare 
mporaBeiv omovddCwv, Chrys. A very 
similar use of érexrelveddat is cited in 
Steph. Thesaur. s. v., Strabo, xvi. p. 
800. kaTa oKomoy 
d:aKw] ‘I press forward toward the 
mark.’ The preposition card here marks 
the direction of the didcev (see Acts 
viii. 26, xvi. 7, and with more geo- 
graphical reference, ii. 10, xxvii. 12), — 
a direction which, according to the pri- 
mary meaning of the prep. (kata = ke-v 
-Ta) is represented ‘beginning near us 
and proceeding to a point not necessari- 
ly distant,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 183. On 
the absolute use of didkw, see on ver. 12. 
BpaB. tis &yw KAhoews| ‘prize 
of the heavenly calling ;’ the gen. not be- 
ing of apposition (De W.), which would 


— 


Cuapr. III. 15. 


PHILIPPIANS: 


91 


év Xpiotd “Inaod. ©” Oot ody tédev01, ToUTO Ppovapev Kab el Te 


involve the untenable assumption that 
kAjjots = ‘superna beatitudo,’ Ist., com- 
pare De W., —but a specigs of the gen. 
possessivus, serving to mark the BpaB. as 
that which the aw Ajjois has in expec- 
tation as its final crown. The BpaBetoy 
is here, as in 1 Corinth. ix. 24, not ‘ the 
goal,’ but ‘the prize’ (7d &SAov exdAecer, 


, Pheod.), and is the object which the 6:d- 


key is designed to attain (compare Luke 
xv. 14, xxii. 52, Acts viii. 36, and see 
critical note), — ‘ the future eternal glory 
to which God calls us by the gospel of 
Christ,’ Bull, Serm. xrv. p. 268 (Oxf. 
1844). The derivation is uncertain; 
perhaps Bpa = mpo with reference to the 
judge sitting forward to award the prize. 
Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 106. 

The xAjjous, here defined as proceeding 
from God (gen. originis), is still further 
specified as 7 &yw KAjois, the heavenly 
calling (compare Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26) ; 
not with any special reference to the pe- 
culiar appointment of St. Paul (Meyer, 
Alf.), but, as the latitude of the passage 
seems to require, with general reference 
to its ends and objects; it was a KAjous 
émovpdvios (Heb. iii. 1). God was its au- 
thor (1 Thess. ii. 12), heaven the object 
to which it conducted, and in reference 
to which it was vouchsafed ; compare 
ver. 20. évy Xp. *Ino. may be con- 
nected (a) with di&xw, as Chrys., appy. 
Theoph., GEcum., and very emphatical- 
ly Meyer; or (b) with «Ajows (Copt., 
JEth.), — xadrety év Xp., and therefore «a. 
év Xp. without the art. being a permissible 
formula; see Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 
123, and notes on Hph.i: 15. The latter 
seems most simple, and most coincident 
with St. Paul’s use of the formula. 

On the dogmatical significance of this 
verse, as indicating an effort on our parts 
through the assistance of grace, compare 
Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 22. Vol. 11. p 


255. 


15. Soot oby] ‘As many then as;? 
the ody with its usual collective and ret- 
rospective force gathering into a definite 
exhortation the statements made in the 
three preceding verses : compare Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717. “Ooo: is clearly 
not synonymous with jes of, Heinr., 
but is designedly used as leaving to each 
one’s conscience whether he were téAeios 
or no. TéAetotl ‘ perfect ;” 
not absolutely, e.g. rereAciwuevor (ver. 
12), but relatively ;— yet not necessa- 
rily as opposed to’ vfmio., ‘in socictate 
Christiana cum adultis comparandi,’ 
Van Heng. (compare 1 Cor. ii. 6, xiv. 
20, where, however, the reference seems 
more to knowledge), but simply as those 
who had made some advance toward the 
tédos Of Christian life; compare Wie- 
singer in loc., where this view is elabo- 
rately and successfully maintained. 
TOUTO ppovGmev| ‘let us be of this 
mind,’ ‘let us entertain these views with 
regard to religious practice (Horsley), 
which I follow, and which I am here in- 
culeating.’ Yet what views? Surely 
not merely Td 71 Set Tay Omiadev emidav- 
Sdveosxat, Chrys.; so that reAesdrns in 
its fullest sense is to consist in 7d ph vo- 
mlCew éavrdy Tédctoy eva (compare The- 
ophyl.), but with a more inclusive refer- 
ence to the whole great subject which 
commenced ver. 7, was continued to ver. 
12, and was specially illustrated in ver. 
12-14. That the rodro does refer to 
what immediately precedes, to the éy 5& 
of ver. 13, seems required by the rules 
of perspicuity, — but, that it refers to it 
only in so far as it forms a sort of exam- 
ple,and special statement of the modus 
agendi, in reference to ver. 8 sq., seems 
required by the evident interdependence 
of the whole passage. 
et Tt Kk, 7.A.] ‘and if in any respect ye 
are differently minded ;’ ‘if you entertain, 
as is certainly supposable («i with indie., 


Kat 


99 PHILIPPIANS. 


Crap. IIT. 15, 16. 


a a AY val / AY > 
érépws povelre, Kat TodTO 6 Oeos tiv amoxadver. 1 mdjpv eis 


a n a a 
0 epSdcapev TH AVTO oToUyelv. 


see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, notes on Gal. i. 
9), upon any point, — not of doctrine or 
external worship (Horsley), but of moral 
practice (od wept Soyudtwy Tata eipnrat 
GAAG Tept Biov TeAcidTHTOS, Chrys.), any 
different, and so, almost necessarily, less 
correct sentiments, even this too, — this 
about which ye are thus differently 
minded, will God reveal to you in its 
true relations.’ There is thus no need 
with Horsley, in his able sermon on this 
passage, to give gpove?re two different 
references, (a) to religious disposition, 
(6) to opinion ; noris it enough to regard 
€Tépws as merely in opposition to ‘ same- 
ness and uniformity,’ when the context 
seems so clearly to imply an zmproper 
and injurious diversity ; see examples of 
this sense of €repos in notes on Gal. i. 6. 
We may observe (with Wiesinger) that 
the apostle does not say €repoy but éré- 
pws; they did not differ in fundamentals, 
but in the aspects and relations in which 
they regarded them and carried them 
into practice. kar TodvTo| 
‘ even this,’ ‘ this also, as well as the other 
things which God has been pleased to 
reveal ;’ the ascensive xa) contrasting 
the present toiro, — the point on which 
they need revelation, not with the pre- 
ceding totdro (Flatt); but with the other 
points (to which e% 7 is the exception) 
concerning which they have already re- 
ceived it, and are already in accord with 
the apostle: compare Hartung, Partik. 
8. v. kat, 2. 8, Vol.1.p.135. The rodro 
is somewhat differently explained, ‘ jus- 
titiam esse ex fide,’ Vatabl., ‘vos esse 
deceptos,’ Grot., ‘quod nos perfecti’sen- 
timus,’ Beng. ; alii alia. The only nat- 
ural explanation seems that adopted 
above, viz., the thing concerning which 
érépws ppoveire (Horsley), 7. e. the true 
relations of the preceding ti, ‘ zi in sei- 
ner wahrheit,” De Wette; 6 Ocds iui 


@s ayvootow bmodciéca tb Sov, Theoph. 
&amoxarver| ‘will reveal, by means 
of the Tlvedua coplas rad dmroradtpews, 
Ephes. i. 17 ; obi efmev, évdtet, GAN’ arok- 
adver iva Sd& paAAov ayvolas elvaL Td 
mpayua, Chrys. The future is not merely 
expressive of wish, but of an assured and 
predictive hope ; ‘ loquitur pro spe quam 
ex priore ipsorum fide conceperat ; sic 
et Gal. v. 10,’ Grot.: comp. Winer, G7. 
§ 40. 6, p. 251. 

16. rAnyv] ‘ Notwithstanding, ‘be 
that as it may,’ Horsley; ‘in spite of 
there being several points in which you 
will probably need dmoxdAviis.’ » The 
practically adversative force of rAjv lim- 
its the preceding ,expression of predic- 
tive hope, while its intrinsically compar- 
ative force serves also to contrast the aor. 
eos. with the fut. drox.; see notes on 
ch. i. 18, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
724. eis 0 épSdoaper| 
‘whereto we have attained” Matth. xii. 
28, Rom. ix. 31, compare Luke xi. 20. 
The primary and classical meaning of 
this verb (prevenire) appears to have 


been almost entirely lost sight of in Al-_ 


exandrian Greek, and to have merged 
in the general meaning ‘ venire,’ and 
with eis, ‘ pervenire ;” compare Dan. iv. 
19, 4 peyadwotvn cov eueyaduven Kal 
epadacev eis Toy odpaydy: see Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 11. p. 357. It is doubtful 
whether éoSdo. denotes advance in moral 
conduct (Chrys., Theophyl., Mey.), ad- 
vance in knowledge (De W.., Wiesing.), 
or in both (Alf.); the first seems most 
in accordance with the context and with 
orotxeiv, the last, however, not improba- 
ble. Lastly, that 6 does not indicate a 
point common to all, is almost self-evi- 
dent: it is a point, in a common line, va- 
rying in its position according to indi- 
vidual progress. This common line 
(produced) the apostle, in the following 


Cusp. III. 17, 18. 


Tmitate me and my follow- 
ers, for many, alas ! mind 
earthly things. Our coun- 
try is heaven, whence we 
look for our Lord and our 
final change. 


TUTOV Mas. 


words, commands all to pursue, and not 
to diverge from: compare the illustra- 
tive diagram of Meyer in loc. 

T@ avtT@ otorxetyv| ‘walk onward 
coincidently with the same,’ or ‘ according 
to the same;’ dat. norm, compare Gal. 
vi. 16, T4 Kavdi To’Tw oToLXeEIv, Where 
see note and references. The infinitive 
is here imperatival, and in accordance 
with that usage, conveys a precise and 
emphatic command, or rather address 
(Kriiger, Sprachi. § 55. 1.5), in the sec- 
ond person singular or plural; see Jelf, 
Gr. 671. a, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 86. 
Hence the hortative translation in the 
first person, as in Theoph., oroxyapev 
(comp. Chrys.), and in all the Vy. ex- 
cept Auth. (Platt), seems grammatically 
doubtful ; so rightly Mey., Alf., but not 
De W. This is perhaps the only certain 
instance of a pure imperatival infinitive 
in the N. T.; other instances, e.g. Rom. 
xii. 15, pass more into declarations or 
duty and of what ought to be done, and 
may consequently be joined with all 
three persons ; sec Jelf, Gram. § 671. b, 
Winer, Gr. § 43. 5, p. 283. The 
addition in Rec., kavdv, Td adtd ppoveiv, 
which appears, with variations both of 
words and order, in the majority of un- 
cial MSS (see Tisch.), is rejected by 
AB; 17.67**; Copt., Sah., Ath. (Pol., 
but not Platt), Theodot.-Ancyr.; Hil., 
Aug., al., and by Luchm., Tisch., and 
most recent editors. It has been de- 
fended by Rinck, Matth., and Wordsw., 
but, owing to the suspicious variations 
in words and order, has every appear- 
ance of an explanatory gloss ; comp. ch. 


5 1h.2,,Gal, vi. 16. 


“7. Tveminntal K.7.A.] ‘ Be imi- 
tators together, scil. with all who imitate 
me;’ ‘coimitatores,’ Clarom., Copt.: 


PHILIPPIANS. 93 


cv 


Mi Suppepntat pov yiveorSe, aderdoi, Kab 
lay \ ev m 
TKOTELTE TOUS OUTWS TrENLTTATOUVTAS Kaas eyeTE 


\ si a a 
18 qroddol yap TepiTratovaw, ods 


continuation of the foregoing exhortation 
with reference to the apostle’s own ex- 
ample. The ovv in cvpu. is apparently 
neither otiose on the one hand, as in 
ovymoditat, Ephes. ii. 19, nor yet on the 
other does it imply so much as ‘omnes 
uno consensu, et una mente,’ Calv., Al- 
ford, —a tinge of ethical meaning not 
suggested or required by the context. It 
appears simply to mark the common na- 
ture of the action in which they all were 
to share; not merely ‘be imitators’ (1 
Cor. iv. 16), but ‘bea company of such ;’ 
kasdmep év xopp kal otparowédw Toy Xo- 
pnydy Kal orpatiyyby Set pimetodae Tods 
Aorods, Chrys. Kah 
okomwette x.7.A.| ‘and mark them 
which are thus walking ;’ they were all to 
imitate the absent apostle and to observe 
studiously those with them who walked 
after hisexample. Who these were can- 
not be determined: the reference may be 
to Timothy, Epaphras, and other mis- 
sionaries of the apostle, but is perhaps 
more naturally to all those, whether holy 
men among the Philippians, or teachers 
sent to them, who followed the example 
of St. Paul; diddoKe: ds modAovs exer 
TovdE TOU GkoTOD KoLvwyovs, Theod. 

kadas €xete x. 7. A.J] ‘Sas ye have 
us for an ensample, kas standing in 
correlation to the preceding oftws, and 
nuas referring to the apostle: so Vulg., 
Clarom., and all Vv., Chrys. and the 
Greek expositors, and, it may be added, 
nearly all modern commentators. Meyer 
and Wiesing. give kadas an argumenta- 
tive force, ‘inasmuch as’ (see notes on 
Eph. i. 4), but in so doing seem to im- 
pair the force, and obscure the perspi- 
cuity of the passage : see Alf. in loc., who 
has satisfactorily refuted this interpreta: 
tion. The use of the plural judas does, 


94 


PHILIP PLAN'S, 


Cuapr. III. 18, 19. 


a lal , ‘ 
TOAAdKIS EXeyou Liv, viv 5é Kai KNalwy héeyw, Tors éySpods Tod 


a a a \ I “ .Y 
ctaupod Tod Xpictod, 1 dv TO TENOS am@XeELA, OV 6 Oeos 7) Kota 


not imply a reference to St. Paul and 
Tovs ovTws mepiT., but seems naturally to 
point either to the apostle and his fellow- 
workers (Van Heng., Alf.), or perhaps, 
more probably, is the apostle’s designa- 
tion of himself viewed less in his per- 
sonal than his official relations : ‘ be all, 
in matters of practical religion, imitators 
of me, Paul, and observe those, etc., who 
have me their apostle as their ensample ;’ 
compare 2 Thess. iii. 7,9. The singu- 
lar téroy yields no support to either in- 
terpretation; see Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 5, 
p- 61. : 

18. toAAo) ydép] Reason for the 
foregoing exhortation arising from the 
sad nature of thé case. Who the moadol 
were cannot be exactly determined. It 
seems, however, clear that they are not 
the same as those mentioned in ver. 2 
sq. The latter were false teachers, and 
of Judaical tenets; these, on the con- 
trary, were not teachers at all, and were 
of an Epicurean bias; not, however, Pa- 
gans (Rill.), but nominal Christians, 
baptized sinners (Manning), who dis- 
graced their profession by their sensual- 
ity; Xpirrianopdy pev Sroxpiwdpevor ev 
Tpuph d€ Kat avéoet (avtes, Theoph., 
after Chrys. 
atv] ‘are walking, ‘are pursuing their 
course.’ There is no need to supply 


oe 
any qualifying adverb (Dus ve) gaa 
{aliter] Syr.), or to assume any pause 
and change of structure (Rill., De W.). 
Though commonly associated by St. Paul 
with qualifying adverbs or adv. clauses, 
whether in bonam (Rom. xiii. 13, Eph. iv. 
1), or in malam partem (2 Cor. iv. 2, 2 
. Thess. iii. 6), the verb itself is of neutral 
meaning (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1), and in 
its metaphorical use seems only to de- 
signate a man’s course of life in its prac- 
tical aspects and manifestations ; it being 


TEPLTATOV- 


left to the context to decide whether 
they are bad or good. 
moAAdKLs €AEvor| ‘ ofttimes used to 
mention to you ;” most probably by word 
of mouth ; perhaps also in the messages 
transmitted to them by his emissaries; 
not by any means necessarily in another 
Epistle (Flatt). The mwoAddms (‘many 
times’) follows the zoAAo} with a slight 
rhetorical force not without example in 
St. Panl’s Epistles ; see Winer, Gr. § 68. 
1, p. 560, and compare the large quan- 
tity of examples collected by Lobeck, 
Paralipom. p. 56, 57. 
kal kAalwy| ‘even weeping,’ because 
the evil has so increased; dytws duxpiav 
&Elot of Tpupayres, Td pev mepiBdAaor, 
TovTéoTl, TO Gua Aiwatvoytes, THS BE 
MeAAovons evdbvas diddvar [Wuxis?] ov- 
d€éva, motodyTat Adyov, Chrys. 
tTovs €xSpovs rod ctavpod| ‘the 
(special) enemies of the cross :’ apposition 
to the preceding relative ; compare Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 59.7, p. 469. The article de- 
fines the class sharply and distinctly, 
and specifies them as enemies kar’ ekoxhv. 
They are so specified, not on account of 
their doctrinal errors (d:ddoKovras Ort 
dixa Tis vous woAirelas advvarov Tis 
cwrnpias Tuxeiv, Theod.), but on account 
of their sensuality and their practical de- 
nial of the great Christian principle, of 
dé Tod Xpic rod Thy odpKa écratpwoay civ 
Tos Tadhuacw Kal rats émSuutas, Gal. 
vy. 24. So Chrys., Theoph., Gicumen., 
and, with a more general ref., Athan. (#) 
de Virgin. § 14. On the practical ap- 
plication of the verse, ‘the Cross the 
measure of sin,’ see Manning, Serm. x1. 
Vol. 111. p. 201 sq., and compare Bp. 
Hall, Serm. x11. Vol. v. p. 172 sq. (Oxf. 
1837). 
19.év 7d TérAos GmdbrA€tal ‘whose 
end is perdition ;’ more specific deserip- 
tion of their characteristics, and the cer- 


Cuar. ITI..19, 20. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


95 


Ne 60 b A > \ tT <! e Ms f nr 20 e lal 
Kal n do€a €v TH aicyvvy avT@v, ot Ta eriyera ppovoovtes. ™ Hudy 


tain and fearful issues that await them. 
TéAos has the article as marking the defi- 
nite and almost necessary end of such a 
course (compare 2 Cor. xi. 15), while 
amérkea marks that end as no merely 
temporal one, but, as its usage in St. 
Panl’s Epp...(ch. i. 28, Rom. ix. 22, 2 
Thess. ii. 3, 1 Tim. vi. 9) seems always 
to indicate, — as eternal ; compare Fritz. 
Ttomans, Vol. 11. p. 338, and contrast 
Rom. vi. 22. &v 6 Oeds] 
‘whose God is their belly:’ comp. Rom. 
Xvi. 18, TG Kuplw judy XpiorG od Sov- 
Actvovow GAAG TH Eavt@y KoiAla ( Tisch.). 
That this peculiarly characterizes these 
sensualists as Jews (see Theod.), and 
espec. Pharisees (Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. 
Vol. 1. p. 801), does not seem tenable ; 
see on ver. 18. Several commenta- 
tors, B. Crus., Alf. (comp. Vulg., The- 
oph.), regard 6 Oeds as the predicate ; 
the following clause seems to suggest the 
contrary. kal 4 ddka 
K.T-A.| ‘and (whose) glory is in their 
shame,’ scil. ‘exists in the sphere of it,’ 
‘yersatur in,’ not ‘ becomes their shame,’ 
Luther; clause dependent on the pre- 
ceding dy. The dd&a is here, as Meyer 
rightly suggests, subjective, what they 
deemed so ; aicxvvn, on the contrary, is 
objective, what every moral consideration 
marked to be so. The reference of aic- 
xvvy to circumcision (‘ quorum gloria in 
pudendis,’ Aug., Pseudo.-Ambr., An- 
selm), probably suggested by the confu- 
sion of those here mentioned with those 
noticed in verse 2, is alluded to, but 
rightly not adopted by Chrys. and The- 
oph. of ra erly. ppo- 
vodvtes| ‘who mind earthly things:’ 
relapse into the nominative to give the 
clause force and emphasis; sce Bern- 
hardy, Synt. 111. 8, p. 68. This can 
scarcely be called so much a participial 
anacoluthon (see examples in Winer, 
Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505), as an emphatic re- 


2 


turn to the primary construction, moAAo? 
yap mepir.—oi Ta, eriyera ppovodytes. The 
word ¢poveiy, as Horsley has remarked 
(on ver. 15), has considerable amplitude 
of meaning: combined with r& éml-yera 
(contrast ver. 20) it here seems to denote 
the concentration of all thought, feeling, 
and interest in earth and earthliness,—rd 
evtaida mavta Kexticdat, Chitys., who 
gives special exx.; comp. Alf. in loc. 
20. nu@v yap Td mwoA.] ‘Forour 
country or commonwealth is in heaven ;? 
confirmation (‘ enim,’ Clarom., not ‘au- 
tem,’ Vulg.) of the foregoing by means 
of the contrasted conduct of St. Paul and 
his followers (ver. 17), jay being em- 
phatic, and oa. év ovp. in antithesis to 
7a erly. ppovetv. The word moalrevua, 
an Gm. Aeydu. in the N. T., has received 
several different explanations. Three 
deserve consideration ; (c) conversation ; 


Vo > 
‘conversatio,’ Vulg., wluscs [opus] 


Syr., ‘ vita civilis,’ Copt., and as far as 
we can infer, Theodoret, Gicumenius, 
—the meaning being, ‘ nostra quam hic 
sequamur vivendi ratio in ceelis est,’ 
Van Heng., De Wette ; (8) citizenship, 
‘municipatus,’ Jerome (comp. Tertull. 
de Cor. Mill. § 13), ‘ jus civitatis nostre,’ 
Zanch , Luther (earlier ed ), — the mean- 
ing being, ‘we are freedmen of a heay- 
enly city,’ Whichcote, Serm. xv111. Vol. 
11. p. 875, and more recently Manning, 
Serm. x. Vol. 111. p. 183; (+) country, 
state, to which we belong as moAtra; 
Sanderson, Serm. xy. Vol. 1. p. 378 
(ed. Jacobs.); see 2 Macc. xii. 7, ray 
‘lommitav moAtrevpa, Polyb. Hist. 1. 13, 
12, ra mwoAtretpata [Tov “Pou. Kk. Kapx.], 
and compare Eph. ii. 19, cuymoAtra: rey 
ayiwy ; so Theophl. (thy ratpisa), Beng., 
Mey., Alf., and the majority of modern 
commentators. Of these (a). has this 
advantage, that being subjective it pre- 
sents a more exact contrast to Ta émly. 


96 


PRILTIPLE TANS. 


Cuap. III. 20, 21. 


\ x t > 9 mie ‘ > & \ a > 5 
yap TO ToNtTEvpa ev ovpavols UTapyel, EE 00 Kal CwTHpa amreKde- 
f s ’ a ‘XS \ 914 I Ss a 
xomesa Kupiov “Inootv Xpictov, “ds petacynpatice TO Hwa 


ppovety ; the equiv., however, to avac- 
Tpopy rests only on the use of the verb 
(comp. Philo, de Confus. § 17, x@pov év 
@ moArrevovta), and is itself not lexically 
demonstrable. Again in (8) the equiv- 
alence of moAirevwa to modrrela (Acts 
XxXii. 28) is equally doubtful, for the pas- 
sage adduced from Aristot. Pol. 111. 6, 
does not prove that the words are used 
indifferently ( Alf.), but indifferently only 
in regard to a particular sense (méAews 
Taé1s),—a statement fully confirmed by 
other passages, Polyb. Hist. 1v. 28. 9, 
al., Joseph. contr. Ap. 11. 17,—a perti- 
nent example; compare Beza in loc. 
We retain then (y), which appears to 
yield a pertinent meaning, and was per- 
haps chosen rather than méAus (Heb. xi. 
10), or warpis (Heb. xi. 14), as repre- 
senting our heavenly home, our ‘Iepovea- 
Ahm emovpayios (Heb. xii. 22), on the side 
of its constitution and polity; ‘our state, 
the spiritual constitution to which we be- 
long is in heaven:’ compare Gal. iv. 
26, Rey. xxi. 2, 10, Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 
2, p. 182. 
badpx.| ‘existeth in heaven,’ ‘ consti- 
tuta est,’ Clarom.; see Wordsw. in loc., 
who rightly calls attention to the strong 
word tmdpxe. The various practical 
aspects of this consolatory declaration 
are ably stated by Whichcote, Serm. 
Xvii1., though somewhat modified by 
the interpretation assigned to woAlreupa : 
our home is in heaven while we are here 
below, exemplariter, as we make it our 
copy; jinaliter, as we carry it in our 
thoughts; analogice, in regard to jthe 
quality of our actions ; znchoative, accord- 
ing to the degree of our present station ; 
intellectualiter, according to the constitu- 
tion of our minds; Vol. 11. p. 375 sq. 

€& ob] ‘from whence,’ ‘ inde,’ Vulgate 


o 
A= — [exinde] Syr.; not é€ 08, 


év ovpavots 


scil. woArr. (Beng.),.a construction per- 
missible, but not necessary, as é& ov is 
purely adverbial ; see Winer, Gr. § 21. 
3, p. 128. The meaning ‘ex quo tem- 
pore,’ is grammatically correct (Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 43. 4.7) but obviously point- 
less and unsatisfactory. 

kal owt. awend.] ‘we also tarry for 
as Saviour ;’ the xa! marks the corres- 
pondence of the act with the previous 
declaration, owr7pa the capacity in which 
the Lord was tarried for. The pure eth- 
ical meaning of amexd. sc. ‘ constanter, 
patienter, expectare’ (Tittm. Synon. 1. 
p- 106), seems here, owing to the preced- 
ing éeé ov, less distinct than in other pas- 
sages where such local allusions are not 
present, e.g., Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 
Cor. i. 7, Gal. v. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 20, but is 
perhaps not wholly lost: see notes on 
Gal. v. 5, Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 
14, Fritz. Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 156 ; com- 
pare also notes on ch. i. 20. The sim- 
ple form éxdéxecSa: occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 
11, James v. 7; comp. Soph. Pail. 128, 
Dion.-Hal. Antiqg. v1. 67. 

21. wetacxnpmatiaes] ‘shall trans- 
Jorm,’ simply ;— not ‘ verklaren,’ Luth., 
Neand., a meaning derived only from the 
context. This peculiar exhibition of our 
Lord’s power at His second coming is 
brought here into prominence, to en- 
hance the condemnation of sensuality 
(ver. 19) and to confirm the indirect ex- 
hortation to a pure though suffering life, 
It seems wholly unnecessary to restrict 
this merely to the living (Mey.) ; still 
less can we say with Alf. that ‘the words 
assume, as St. Paul always does when 
speaking incidentally, the jue?s surviving 
to witness the coming of the Lord,’ when 
really every moment of a true Christian’s 
life involves such an amexdoxfv. On the 
nature of this weracynuatiouds, which 
the following words define to be strictly 


Cuap. III. 21.°. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


97 


fal , lal) lol nn an 
THS TATEWOTEDS TULOV TUUpoppoy TH GwpaTe THs SoEns avTod, 
Kata THY évépyetay Tod SivacSat avTov Kal brotatas aiTe Ta 


WwavTa. 


in aecordance with that of the Lord’s 
body, —a change from a natural to a 
spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44), compare 
Barnet, State of Dead, ch. viii. p. 231 
(Transl.), Cudworth, Jntell. Syst. v. 3, 
Vol. 111. p. 310 sq. (Tegg), Delitzsch, 
Psychol. 111. 1, p. 401 sq., and the com- 
ments of Wordsw. zn loc. 

td oGma K.7.A.] ‘the body of our hu- 
miliation ;* not ‘our vile body,’ Auth. 
Ver., Conyb., a solution of the genitive 
case which though in some cases admis- 
sible (Winer, Gr. § 34. 3.b, p. 211) here 
obscures the full meaning of the words 
and mars the antithesis. The gen. seems 
here not so much a gen. of quality as of 
content, and to belong to the general cat- 
egory of the genitive materice (Scheuerl. 
Synt. § 12. 2, p. 83); the rametywois was 
that which the odua contained and in- 
volved, that of which it was the recepta- 
cle; compare Bernh. Synt. 111. 45, p. 
63. It seems undesirable with Chrys. 
(comp. Mey., Alf.) to refer rametywors 
wholly to the sufferings of the body, 
‘humil. que fit per crucem.? Though 
the more remote context (comp. ver. 18) 
shows that these must clearly be in- 
cluded, the more immediate antithesis 
7) caua THs Sdéns seems also to show 
that the ideas of weakness and fleshly 
nature (Coloss. i. 92) must not be ex- 
eluded ; compare Fritz. Rom. vi. 6, Vol. 
I. p. 882. The distinction between ra- 
metvwors and ramewdtns (compare Alf.) 
cannot safely be pressed ; see Luke i. 48, 
Prov. xvi. 19 al. For examples 
of a similar connection of the pronoun 
with the dependent subst., see Green, Gr. 
p- 265. cipmuoppoy k.7.d | 
‘ (so.as to be) conformed to the body of His 
glory ;’ seil. eis To yevéoSar ciup., —a 
gloss which Rec. with D?D*EKL ; many 
Vy.; Orig., al., retain asa portion of 

13 


the text. The shorter reading has not 
only internal, but preponderant external 
evidence [ABD!FG; Vulg., Clarom., 
Gth., al.] distinctly in its favor. On this 
proleptie use of the adj., see Winer, Gr. 
§ 66. 3, p. 550, Jelf, Gram. § 439. 2. 
The genitival relation tis Sdéns adtod is 
exactly similar to that of rs tam. ju., 
‘the body which is the receptacle of His 
glory, in which His glory is manifested.’ 
In respect of this ddf we are ctupoppor, 
—ov Kata Thy moodTHTA GAAG KaTa THY 
moiTyTa, Theod. 
thy évépy.| ‘according to the working 
of His ability,’ etc. ; compare Eph. i. 19. 
The object of this clause, as Calvin 
rightly remarks, is to remove every pos- 
sible doubt; ‘ad infinitam Dei poten- 
tiam convertere oportet, ut ipsa omnem 
dubitationem absorbeat. Nec potentize 
tanttum meminit, sed efficacize, qua est 
effectus vel potentia in actum se exse- 
rens.’ ‘The infin. with rod is dependent 
on the preceding subst. as a simple (pos- 
sessive) gen. (a construction very com- 
mon in the N. T.), and serves here to 
express, perhaps a little more forcibly’ 
than ddvauis, the enduring nature and 
latitude of that power; see examples in 
Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 290. 

kal brotdéat| ‘even to subdue;’ the — 
ascensive ka) serves to mark the limitless 
nature of that power: He shall not only 
transform 7b céua «.7. A., but shall also 
subdue ra mdvra, all existing things, 
Death not excluded (1 Cor. xv. 26), to 
Himself. The Kupidrns of the Eternal 
Son will then be complete, supreme, and 
universal; to be resigned unto the Fa- 
ther (1 Cor. xy. 28) in so far as it is eco- 
nomical, to last for ever and for ever in 
so far as it is ‘ consequent unto the union, 
or due unto the obedience of the passion,’ 
Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 197 


Kata 


98 PHILIP PIANS. 


Brethren, stand fast in the 
Lord. 


Cuap. IV. 1-3. 


IV. “Qote, adeagoi pov ayarnrol Kal ere 


1 \ \ t ! c/ / ? (ee 
TONNTOL, Yapa Kal oTEpavos pov, oUTwWS aTHKETE ev Kupie, aya- 


tf 
TT)TOL. 
Let Euodia and Syntyche 
be of one mind: assist, O 


yokefellow, the faithful kgrX@ To avTO ppovelv év Kupio. 


women. 


(ed. Burt.). On the use of arg [AB 
DiFG], not éav7g (Rec.), comp. notes 
on Eph. i. 4. 


Cuarter IV.1. éo7€] ‘So then, 
‘ Consequently,’ ‘itaque,’ Vulg.; ‘as we 
have such a heavenly home, and tarry 
for such a salvation :’ concluding exhor- 
tation naturally flowing from the preced- 
ing paragraph, ch. iii. 17-21, and con- 
tinued in the same tones of personal en- 
treaty (adeAgol) ; comp. | Cor. xv. 58, 
where the particle similarly refers to 
what has immediately preceded. De 
Wette and Wiesinger refer the particle 
to ch. iii. 2 sq., but thereby deprive the 
exhortation of much of its natural and 
consecutive force. On the force of dare 
with indic. and inf., see notes on Gal. ii. 
13, and reff., and with the imper., notes 
on ch. ii. 12. ayanrntot 
Kal érimdsd.| ‘beloved and longed af- 
ter, — terms by no means synonymous 
(Heinr.), but marking both the love the 
apostle entertained for them (emphati- 
cally repeated at the end of the para- 
graph) and the desire he felt te see them ; 
‘carissimi et desideratissimi,’ Vulgate. 
The word is an &z. Aeyou. in the N. T, 
but is occasionally found elsewhere ; Ap- 
pian, Hisp. § 43, émimodhrovs dpkous 
(Rost u. Palm, Zer.), Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. 
§ 59, eixratay Kad émimddSntov eiphynv. 
On the force of émi, see notes on 2 Tim. 
i. 4. xapa kal oréga- 
vos pov] ‘my joy and crown,’ scil. é¢? 
vis xXapay Kat @mawov exw, Camerar. 
See especially 1 Thess. ii. 19, in which 
the words év 77 avtod [Kuplov] mapoucig 
there limit the reference to the Lord’s 
coming, —a reference, however, here 


2 Evodiav tapaxare Kat Suvtvynv mapa- 


3 \ > lal 
val EpWTW 


(Alford, comp. Calv.) by no means nec- 
essary: the Philippians were a subject 
of joy and a crown to St. Paul, now as 
well as hereafter; compare 1 Cor. ix. 2, 
3. For examples of this metaphorical 
use of crép., see Isaiah xxviii. 5, Ecclus. 
i. 11, xxv. 6, Soph. Ajaz, 460. 

otrws| ‘thus,—‘as I have exhorted 
you, and as those are acting whose zroat- 
Tévua isin heaven.’ A reference to their 
present state (‘sic ut ccepistis, state,’ 
Schmid., Beng.), though suggested by 
Chrys., seems out of place in this ear- 
nest exhortation: 1 Cor. ix. 24, cited by 
Bengel, is not in point. oTNKETE 
év Kup.| ‘stand ( fast) in the Lord ;’ not 
‘per Dominum,’ Zanch., but ‘in Domi- 
no,—in Him as in the true element of 
their spiritual life; see 1 Thess. iii. 8, 
and notes on Ephes. iv. 17, vi. 1. al. 

2. Evodtav mapak.| Special ex- 
hortation addressed to two women, Euo- 
dia and Syntyche ; compare ver.3. The 
opinion of Grot. that they are the names 
of two men (Euodias and Syntyches) is 
untenable; that of Schwegler (Nacha-* 
post. Zeit. Vol. 11. p. 135), that they rep- 
resent two parties in,the Church, mon- 
strous. Of the two persons nothing 
whatever is known; they may have been 
deaconesses (Rom. xvi. 1), but were 
more probably persons of station and 
influence (Chrys., comp. Acts xvii. 12), 
whose dissensions, perhaps in matters of 
religion (7d aitd pov. €v Kvp.), might 
haye shaken the faith (comp. oftws or- 
kere immediately preceding) of some of 
the Philippian converts. Syntyche has 
a place in the Acta Sanct. (July) Vol. v. 
p22: mapakar@| The 
repetition. of this verb is somewhat. no- 


i ee ie 


@nar. [V.3) 


PHILIPPIANS. 


99 


‘ , , , lal 
Kal o€, yunove avvbvye, avANapBavov adtais, aitives év TO evay- 


/ y , \ \ aA rs 
yedio ouvySAncav pot, wera Kal KXypevtos Kat THY NOTOV Cuv- 


EpyOv pov, OV Ta dvomaTta év BiPrw Cor. 


ticeable: it scarcely seems ‘ ad vehemen- 
tiam affectus significandam,’ Erasm., 
Mey., but rather to mark that they both 
equally needed the exhortation, that they 
were in fact both equally toblame. The 
év Kup. is of course not to be joined with 
mapak., ‘obtestor per Dom.,’ Beza 2, but 
marks the sphere in which the 7d aird 
gpov. (see notes on ch. ii. 2) was to be 
displayed. 

8. val épwtG kal ce] ‘yea, I be- 
seech even thee. The particle vat (not 
kal, Rec., which has scarcely any critical 
support) has here its usual and proper 
confirmatory force. It is used either (a) 
in assent to a direct question, Matth. ix. 
28, John xi. 27, Rom. iii. 29; (b) in as- 
sent to an assertion, Matth. xy. 27, 
Mark vii. 28; (c) in graver assertions 
as confirmatory of what has preceded, 
Matth. xi. 26, Luke xi. 51, xii. 5; (d) 
in animated addresses as corroborating 
the substance of the petition, Philem. 20 
(see Mey. in loc.). The simple ‘ vis ob- 
secrandi,’ = Heb. x5 (Grot., Viger, al.) 
cannot be substantiated. For examples 
of its use in classical Greek, sce Viger, 
Idiom. vit. 9, p. 424, Rost u. Palm, Ler. 
s. v. Vol. 11. p. 309. On the 
distinction between épwray (‘rogare,’ — 
equals) and aireiy (‘ petere,’— superiors), 
see Trench, Synon. § 40. 
yuhove ctv Cuyel ‘true yoke-fellow,’ 
‘dilectissime conjunx,’ Claroman.—a 
translation that may have early been 
misunderstood. The explanations of 
these words are somewhat numerous. 
Setting aside doubtful or untenable 
‘conjectures, —that the person referred 
to is the wife of the apostle, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. 111. 53 [grammatically incorrect 
(opp. to Alf.) as the uncertain gender of 
otiv¢. (Eur. Ale. 315, 843) would cause 
ywiowos to revert to three terminations], 


the husband or brother of one of the 
women (Chrys., hesitatingly), Timothy 
(Estius), Silas (Beng.), Epaphroditus, 
though now with the apostle (Grot., 
Hamm.), Christ (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 
458), — two opinions deserve considera- 
tion; (a) that cdvvyos is a proper name, 
and that yvtjo.ws is used in allusion to 
the correspondence between the name of 
the man and his relation to the apostle, 
‘ qui vere, et re et nomine, ovy¢uyos es,’ 
Gom., Meyer; (b) that the chief of the 
émioxomot (ch. i. 1) at Philippi is here re- 
ferred to. Of these (a) harmonizes with 
the meaning of yvfjows (comp. notes on 
1 Tim. i. 2), and is slightly favored by 
the order (Luke i. 3, Galat. iii. 1; but 
KL; al. Rec. reverse it), but is improb- 
able on account of the apparently unique 
occurrence of the name. As the only 
valid objection to (b),—that St. Paul 
never elsewhere so designates any of his 
avvepyol (Mey.), may be diluted by the 
fact that the chief Bishop of the place 
stood in a somewhat different relation to 
such associates, and as the order is prob- 
ably due to emphasis on yyjore ( Winer, 
Gr. § 59. 2, p. 469), the balance seems 
in favor of this latter view: so Luther, 
De Wette, and apparently the majority 
of modern expositors. 

cTvAAauB. avtais] ‘assist them,’ scil. 
Euodia and Syntyche, in endeavoring to 
bring them to a state of dudvoia; not 
‘those women which,’ Auth. and other 
Engl. Vv. (comp. Vulg. ‘illas que’), 
—an inexact translation of afrwes (see 
below) which obscures the reference of 
av’tais to the preceding substantives. 
The middle cvAAauB. occurs .in a similar 
construction, Luke v. 7 (BonSe D), 
Gen. xxx. 8 (Alex.), lian, Var. Hist. 
x1. 4, and with a gen. rei, Soph. Philoct. 
282. The active is more usual, in this 


100 PHILIPPIANS. 


Rejoice, show forbearance ; 
be not anxious, but tell 


your wants to God, and al ETE 
His peace shall be with you. x r 


sense, in classical Greek ; see examples 
in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 

aitives] ‘inasmuch as they,’ ‘ut que,’ 
Beza, compare Syr. io [quia ip- 
sx| and see Scholef. Hints, p. 106: a 
very distinct use of the explicative force 
of doris : see notes on Gal. iv. 24. 

év T@ evayy-| The gospel was the 
sphere in which the labor was expended ; 
compare Reuss, Tél. Chrét. 1v. 8, Vol. 
11. p. 81. Meyer very appropriately 
calls attention to the fact that women 
were apparently the first in whom the 
gospel took root in Philippi; Acts xvi. 
13, €AaAoduev Tals cuveAdovomsS yuvaikiv. 
“Women were the first fruits of St. Paul’s 
labors on the continent of Europe,’ 
Baum. on Acts, /. c. meta 
kat KAhu.] ‘in company with Clement 
also, scil. cuvndAnoav: they were asso- 
ciated with Clement and the apostle’s 
other fellow-laborers at Philippi in some 
efforts to advance the gospel, perhaps, 
as Beng. suggests, not unattended with 
danger; Acts xvi. 19 sq., compare Phil. 
i.28. Itis doubtful whether the Clement 
here mentioned is identical with the third 
bp. of Rome, or not. On the one hand 
we have the very distinct testimony of 
Origen, in Joann. i. 29, Vol. 1v. p. 153 
(ed. Ben.), Euseb. Hist. cel. 111. 4, 15, 
Jerome, de Vir. Ill. xv. Vol. 11. p. 839 
(ed. Vallars.), Epiphanius, Her. xxvii. 
6, Const. Apost. v11. 46 ; see Hammond, 
contr. Blond. p. 254, Lardner, Credibility, 
11. 38. 28. On the other hand (a) the 
notice of Clem. in Irenzeus, Her. 111. 3. 
8, 6 kal Ewpakws tovs pakaplovs ’'Aroord- 
Aous Kal cuuBeBAnkas avrots, — where, 
however, cuufeBaA. (most unnecessarily 
queried by Conyb. and Bloomf.) should 
not be overlooked,— contains no allusion 
to this special commendation ; and (4) 
the present context seems certainly in 


Cup. IV. 4, 5. 


? yt . a 
* Xaipete €v Kupiy mdvtote madw €pd, 
5 70 émtetKes DOV yvooSHiTw Tacw 


favor of the supposition that Clement, 
like Euodia and Syntyche and (appy.) 
the cuvepyot, was a member of the 
Church of Philippi. Still,as it is per- 
fectly conceivable that a member of the 
Church of the Roman city of Philippi 
might have become 7 or 8 years after- 
wards (Pearson, Minor Works, Vol. 11. 
p- 465) Bp. of Rome, — as (b) is merely 
negative, and as the early testimony of 
Origen is positive and distinct, there 
seems no just ground for summarily re- 
jecting, with De W., Mey., and Alf., this 
ancient ecclesiastical tradition ; compare 
Winer, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 232. The 
position of «at between the prep. and the 
noun is somewhat unusual, such a collo- 
cation being in the N. T. apparently con- 
fined to ydp (John iv. 37), ye (Luke xi. 
8), 6€ (Matth. xi. 12), wév (Rom. xi. 22), 
bev ydp (Acts xxviii. 22), and re (Acts 
x.89); compare Matth. Gr. § 595.3. In 
the present case, however, the vinculum 
of the preposition extends over the whole 
clause, cal — xa) (see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 
10) being correlative. The examples 
cited by Alf. (compare Mey.), in which 
only a single kat occurs, are thus not 
fully in point. 
é6vdm. appear only to refer to Tay Ao- 
mav,— ‘Clement whom I have men- 
tioned by name, and the rest, who though 
not named by me, nevertheless have their 
names in the book of life ;’ comp. Luke 
x. 20, Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, xxi. 
27. To supply an optative («%y, ‘ex- 
stent’) and assume that the Aourol were 
now dead (Beng.), seems unnecessary 
and unsatisfactory. The expression is 
not improbably derived from: the Old 
Test. ; compare Exod. xxxii. 32, Psalm 
lix. 28, Isaiah iv. 3, Ezek, xiii. 9, Dan. 
Sede Ite 

4. xaipere| Separate exhortations 
to the church at large, continued to ver. 


Gv te 


a 


—e oi 


Cuap. IV. 5, 6. 
wYpeorrais. 


10. They commence with the exhorta- 
tion, which, as has been already re- 
marked (see notes on ch. iii. 1), pervades 
the whole Epistle. On the repetition, 
Chrys. well observes, todto Sapavvorrds 
éort kal deucvivtos, dtr 6 ev Ocw [Kuplo| 
dy aed xalper Kay Te DALByTaL, Kav STLOvY 
mdoxny vet xalper 6 TowdTos: see the good 
sermon of Beveridge on this text, Serm, 
cy. Vol. v. p. 62 sq. (A.-C. Libr.), and 
compare August. Serm. cLxx1. Vol. vy. 
p- 933 (ed. Migne). 

maAtv épal ‘againT will say, not ‘I 
say,’ Auth. as ép@ seems regularly and 
correctly used throughout the N. T. as a 
future. The traces of a present épéw 
(Hippoer. Precept. p. 64, Epidem. 11. p. 
691) are few and doubtful; see Buttm. 
Irreg. Verbs, p. 89 (Translation). It is 
scarcely necessary to do rhore than no- 
tice the very improbable construction of 
Beng., by which maytore is joined with 
this clause. 

5. 70 émterkts Sua@y] ‘your for- 
bearance,’ Conybeare, ‘your moderation 
(Auth.) and readiness to waive all rigor 
and séverity:’ compare Joseph. Arch. 
VI.12.7, emekets kat weTprot, and Loesn. 
Obs. p. 358, where several examples are 
cited of émetxera in connection with mpav- 
THs, piravspwria, and juepdrns. See 
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 8, and comp. Trench, 
Synon. § 43. On'the use of the abstract 
neuter (7d émeukes = émeixera), compare 
Jdelf, Gr. § 436. y, and notes on ch. iii. 
8; add Rom. ii. 4, 1 Corinth. i, 25, and 
Glasse, Philol. 111. 1, p. 537. 
yrwoditw wmacivy avarp.| ‘become 
known to-all men ;’ ‘let the goodness of 
your principles in this respect be known 
experimentally by all who have dealings 
with you, be they epicurean enemies of 
the cross (Chrys., Theoph.), or pagan 
persecutors’ (Theod.). The command 
is wholly unrestricted. 

6 Kipios éyybs] ‘the Lord (Jesus) 


PALL VE PLAIN S.. 


101 


6 Kipwos éyyts. © Mndév pepywate, ad ev ravti 


is near. The exact meaning and con- 
nection of the words is slightly doubtful. 
The regular meaning of Képios in St. 
Paul’s Epistles (compare Winer, Gram. 
§ 19. 1, p. 113) and the demonstrable 
temporal meaning of éyyts (Matth. xxiv. 
32, Rom. xiii. 11, Rev. i.3) seem clearly 
to refer this not to a general readiness to 
help (Manning, Serm. x111. Vol. 111. p. 
241), but specially to the Lord’s second 
advent, which the inspired apostle re- 
gards as nigh, yet not necessarily as im- 
mediate, or to happen in his own life- 
time. That the early church expected 
a speedy return of Christ, —that they 
thought that He ‘that was to come would 
come, and would not tarry,’ is not to 
be denied. This general expectation, 
however, founded on our Master’s own 
declarations, and on the knowledge that 
the écxara: jucpar (James'v. 3,7) and 
katpol torepor were already come, both 
is and ought to be, separated from any 
specific and personal anticipations of 
which the N. Test. presents no certain 
trace. With regard to the connection, it 
muy be either minatory (Schoettg. Hor. 
Vol. 1. p. 803) or encouraging (De W.) 
with regard to what has preceded, or, 
more probably, consolatory with refer- 
ence to what follows (Chrys.), or, not 
unlikely, a bond of union to both (Alf.) : 
on the one hand, the Lord’s speedy com- 
ing (as Judge) adds a stimulus to our 
exhibition of forbearance toward others, 
comp. James v. 9; on the other, it swal- 
lows up all unprofitable anxieties. 

6. undév wepipy.| ‘be careful about 
nothing ;? ‘ entertain no disquieting anx- 
ieties about anything earthly,’ Matth. vi. 
25. The accusative is that of the object 
whereon the pepimvay is exercised (Jelf, 
Gr. § 551), and stands in emphatic an- 
tithesis to the following év wayti. Chrys. 
and Theophyl. refer wydev mainly to the 
pressure of calamity or persecution (ure 


102 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 7. 


zh mpoceryh Kal Th Sejoer peta evyapiotias TH aiTipaTa Upeov 


qvapiféaS@ mpos Tov Ocov. 7 cat 7) cipyvn Tod Ocod  UTrepexov- 


Ths exelyvwy BBpews, whre TiS Vmav SAl- 
Wews, Theoph.): it seems better to leave 
it wholly unrestricted. The practical 
applications of the text will be found in 
Beveridge, Serm. Vol. v. p. 181 sq. 
(A.-C. Libr.). 
‘in everything,’ equally unrestricted ; not 
‘in all time,’ Syr., Aith., but, ‘in omni- 
bus, Copt., év mavt pnot, rovréott m™pary- 
part, Chrys. ‘The translation of Vulg., 
‘in omni oratione’ (so Clarom.), which 
Meyer, and after him Alford defend as 
meaning ‘in omni (re) oratione,’ ete., is 
certainly rather suspicious. 

TH tmpogevxh K-T.A.] “by your prayer 
and your supplication,’ by the specific 
prayer offered up when the occasion may 
require it; compare Middleton, Art. Vv. 
1. 3,4, p. 93 (ed. Rose). The repeti- 
tion of the article gives an emphasis to 
the words ; each noun is enunciated in- 
dependently : see Winer, Gr, § 19..5, p- 
117. The difference between the more 
‘ general mpoo. (precatio) and the more 
special déqo. (rogatio) is stated in notes 
on Eph. vi. 18, and on 1 Tin. ii. 1. 
meta evxap.| ‘with thanksgiving,’ an 
adjunct to prayer that should never be 
wanting, 1 Thess. v. 18, 1 Tim. Mey 2s 
see Beveridge, Serm. cv11. Vol. Vv. p. 
76 sq. (A.-C. Libr.) compare notes on 
Col. iii. 15. Alford remarks on the 
omission of the article, ‘because the 
matters themselves may not be recog- 
nized as grounds of edxapiria.” It 
seems more simple to say that ebxap., 
‘thanksgiving for past blessings’ (com- 
pare Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 337), 
is in its nature more general and compre- 
hensive, mpoo. and 5éqo. almost necessa- 
rily more limited and specific. Hence, 
though edxap. occurs twelve times in St. 
Paul’s Epistles, it is only twice used 
with the article, 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 2 Cor. 
tiv. 15. Ta aiThpatal 


év mavTl| 


‘your requests ;’ according to termina- 
tion, ‘the things requested’ (compare 
Buttm. Gr. § 119. 7), and thence (as the 
context requires), with a slight modifi- 
cation of meaning, ‘ the purport or sub- 
jects of prayer :’ ‘ petitum, materia def- 
sews,’ Beng.; compare Luke xxiii. 24, 
1 John v. 15. There is often, especially 
in later Greek, a sort of libration of 
meaning between nouns in -ois and -ya; 
compare 2 Tim. i. 13, al. Meyer quotes 
Plato, Rep. vir. p. 566 B, where the 
explanatory clause aiteiy rdv dijuov (see 
Stallb. in loc.) seems to show that there 
is even there also some tinge of such an 
interchange. mpds Tov 
©edr] ‘toward God,’ i.e. ‘ before and 
unto God,’ the prep. denoting the ethical 
direction of the prayer; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 49. h, p. 371. 

7. kal fh eip. tod Oeod| ‘and 
(so) the peace of God,’ the peace which 
comes from Him and of which He is 
the source and origin; gen. auctoris, or 
rather originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 17, 
Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 125), belonging 
to the general category of the genitive of 
ablation (Donalds. Gr. § 448). On the 
use of the consecutive caf (Heb. xii. 19, 
al.), see Winer, Gram. § 53. 8, p. 387. 
The exact meaning of eiphyn Tod Ocov 
(see below, ver. 9) is somewhat doubt- 
ful. Three meanings have been assigned 
to eipfvn; (a) ‘concord ;’ *studium pa- 
cis, unitatis, concordiz, inter homines 
atque in ecclesia’ (Pol. Syn.), appar- 
ently adopted by Theodoret (@s émaaaq- 
Awy byvTwY TGV Biwyuayv avaryKalws avTois 
thy eip. exnttaro), and strenuously ad- 
vocated by Meyer in loc. ; (8) ‘ reconeil- 
jation’ with God; 7 kataAAayn, n ayd- 
mn Tod @eod, Chrys. 1; compare Rom. 
vy. 1, and Green, Gr. p. 262; (7) ‘peace,’ 
i. e. tle deep tranquillity of a soul rest- 
ing wholly upon God, —the antithesis 





Cun. DV. 7; 


PHILIPPIANS. 


108 


oa TdvTa voov ppoupicet TAS Kapdias tov Kal TA voNMaTa Dpuav 


év Xpiot@ "Inood. 


to the solicitude and anxiety engendered 
by the world and worldliness ; compare 
John xiv. 27; Chrys. 2, Beza, Beng,, al. 
Of these (a) seems clearly insufficient 
and not in harmony with the context ; 
(8) points in the right direction, but is 
unnecessarily restrictive; (y) is fully in 
accordance with the context (comp. pndev 
pepuuy., ver. 6), includes (8), and gives 
a full and spiritual meaning: so De W., 
Wiesing., Alf., and most modern com- 
mentators ; compare noies on Col. iii. 15. 
) twep. wavta vovr| ‘which over- 
passeth every understanding ;’? ‘ which 
transcendeth every effort and attempt on 
the part of the understanding to grasp 
and realize it.’ Nods here, as the context 
suggests, points to the human tvevua 
‘quatenus cogitat et intelligit’ (Olshaus. 
Opusc. p. 156),—a meaning, however, 
in many, perhaps the majority of cases 
in the N. T., not sufficiently comprehen- 
sive; see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, and on 
2 Tim. iii. 8. It may be observed that 
the term voids is apparently used by the 
sacred writers, not to denote any sepa- 
rate essence or quality different from the 
mvevua, but as a manifestation or outcom- 
ing of the same in moral and intellectual 
action, the human myvedua, ‘ quatenus 
cogitat, intelligit, et vult,’—the exact 
limits of this definition being in all cases 
best fixed by the immediate context: see 
especially Beck, Seelenl. 11. 18, p. 48 sq., 
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. 1v. 5, p. 145, and 
compare Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, Vol. 
II. p. 494.sq. On the use of the transi- 
tive imepexew with an accus. of the ob- 
ject surpassed (contrast chap. ii. 3), see 
Jelf, Gr. § 504. obs. 2. 

ppovphaer| ‘shall guard, ‘keep ;’ not 
optative, ‘custodiat,’ Vulg., Claroman., 
and in effect Chrys. diapuadéere kal ao- 
gadtoaro, but simply future, as in Goth. 
‘fastaip ’ [servabit,— not ‘ servat,’ De 


Gab.; Goth. pres. commonly supplies 
place of Greek future], Coptic, al.; the 
event will follow if the exhortation undev 
k. T. A. is attended to. We can scarcely 
say with Conyb. that gpoup. is literally 
‘shall varrison’ (2 Cor. xi. 32, Thucyd. 
111. 17, Plato, Rep. 1v. p. 420 a), as the 
idea of ‘ watching over,’ ‘ guarding,’ ac- 
cords with derivation [po = po, and 
Homeric OP-; Pott, Ht. Morsch. Vol. 1. 
p- 122], and appears both in connection 
with persons and things; Sophoc. Gd. 
Rex, 1479, Eurip. Cycl. 686, Here. Fur. 
8399 ; Hesych. @poupe?: pudAdrrea. The 
nature of the @povpnots is more nearly 
defined by év Xp. Ino. which appears to 
denote, not so much with a semi-local 
reference (@oTe mi exmecety avTov Tijs 
miorews, Chrys.) the sphere in which | 
they were to be kept, as that in which 
the action was to take place ; see Meyer 
in loc. Tas Kapdlas 
k. T. A.] {your hearts and your thoughts ;’ 
‘corda vestra et cogitationes vestras,’ 
Copt., Ath. The distinction between 
these two words should not be obscured. 
Kapila, properly the (imaginary) seat of 
the yux7%, the ‘ Lebens-Mitte’ (see Beck, 
Seelenl. 111. 20, p. 63), is used with con- 
siderable latitude of meaning to denote 
the centre of feeling, willing, thinking, 
and even of moral life (see especially De- 
litzsch, Bibl. Psych. rv. 11, p. 203 sq.),, 
and, to speak roughly, bears much the 
same relation to the Wux} that vots bears 
to mvedua (see above), being in fact the 
vx} in its practical aspects and rela- 
tions; see Olshaus. Opusc. p. 155 sq., 
and notes on 1 Zim.i. 5. ‘The vofhuara, 
on the other hand, are properly (as here) 
the: products of spiritual activity, of think- 
ing, willing, etc. (2 Cor. ii. 11), and oc- 
casionally and derivatively, the imple- 
ments or instruments of the same, 2 Cor. 
ili. 14, iv. 4: see Beck, Sceclenl. 11. 19% 


104 


Practise all that is good, and 
all that you have learned 
from me. 


p- 59, Roos, Psych. rv. 26. The meaning 
is thus in effect as stated by Alf., ‘ your 
hearts themselves (7%) and their fruits ;’ 
or as, briefly, by Beng., ‘ cor sedes cog- 
itationum.’ On biblical psychology gen- 
erally, see the remarks in pref. to Past. 
Epist. p. v., and notes on 1 Tim. iii: 16. 
8. 7d Aotwdy] ‘Finally ;’ conclud- 
ing recapitulation, in an emphatic and 
comprehensive summary, of the chief 
subjects for preparatory meditation and 
(ver. 9) consequent practice. The for- 
mula is here more definitely conclusive 
(mavra juiy elpnrat, Chrys.) than in ch. 
lii. 1 (see notes), where the nature of the 
exhortations led to a not unnatural di- 
gression. It thus echoes, yet, owing to 
the difference of the exhortations, does 
not resume (Matth.) the preceding 7d 
Aomdy. The sixfold repetition of dca 
adds much to the vigor and emphasis of 
the exhortation. On the whole verse 
see thirteen able sermons by Whichcote, 
Works, Vol. 111. p. 368 sq. 
GAnSi| ‘true:’ 7.e., as the context 
requires, in their nature and practical 
applications, ‘genere morum,’ Which- 
cote : so Theoph. (comp. Chrys.) aAn37- 
TovTéoty évdpeTa* ) yap Kakia wWevdos ; 
compare Eph. iv. 21. To restrict the 
reference to words (Beng., Bisp.), or to 
doctrine (Hamm.), seems undesirable ; 
the epithets throughout are general and 
inclusive. cepval ‘seemly,’ 
‘ venerable,’ ‘ deserving of, and receiving, 
Oo wT 
respect,’ Syr. eee Tverecunda] : com- 
pare Hor. Fpist. 1.1.11, ‘quid verum 
atque decens curo et rogo.’ The Vulg. 
‘pudica’ is too special, the Auth. ‘hon- 
est’ scarcely exact. As the derivation 
suggests (o¢Boua), the adjective prima- 
rily marks whatever calls for ‘ respect’ 
or ‘ yeneration,’ and thence, with a some- 
what special application, whatever is so 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. IV.-8. 


’ aA 
8 To Aowrrov, adeAHol, boa eaTiv ddnYH, boa 
F218, OL 24 ec 4 eo Aye - 
ceuva, doa dixaia, boa ayvd, boa Tpocpirh}.boa 


seemly and grave (doa év oxhuacw Kar 
Adyots, Kal Badiouacr Kad mpdteow, Cicu- 


men.) as always to secure it ; see Which- 
cote, p. 399. Td ceurydv, according to 
this able writer, consists in ‘ grave be- 
havior’ and ‘ composure of spirit,’ and 
is briefly characterized by Calvin as ‘in 
hoe situm ut digne vocatione nostra am- 
bulemus:’ hence such associations as 
ceuvoy kal Gyiov, Plato, Soph. p. 249 a, 
peérpia, kad ceuvd, Clem.-Rom,1 Cor. § 1; 
compare notes on 1 Jim. ii. 2. 

dixara| ‘just; in its widest applica- 
tion, ‘ qu talia sunt qualia esse opor- 
tet,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 19: not exactly 
‘just and equal,’ Whichcote, but rather 
‘just and right,’ whether from the pro- 
portions of things or constitutions of the 
law (Whichcote, Vol. 1v. p. 10), with- 
out any reference to others (Col. iv. 1) : 
compare Acts.x. 22, Rom. v. 7, 1 Tim. 
i.9. On the distinction between Sikaros 
and the more limited dyaSés, see Tittm. 
Synon. p. 19 sq., and on that between 
dix. and Govos notes on Tit. i. 8. 

ayuda] ‘pure;’ 2 Cor. vii. 11, 1 Tim. 
v. 22: not ‘chaste,’ Grot., Est., al., in 
the more special and limited meaning of 
the word. On the use of ayvds and 
its distinction from @yos (with which 
the Vulgate appears here to have in- 
terchanged it), see notes on 1 Tim. vy. 
22, and Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 21 sq. 
Chrys. draws a correct line between this 
and the preceding ceuyds ; Tb ceuvdy THs 
téw eat) Suvduews, 7d SE Gyvdy Tis Wux7s. 
mpoaptan| ‘lovely’ (am. Acydu.), not 
merely in reference to our fellow-men, 
‘per que sitis amabiles hominibus,’ Est. 
(compare Ecclus. iv. 7), nor even with 
exclusive reference to God (amep eat) to 
cg mpocd., Theod.) but generally, what- 
ever both in respect of itself, and the dis- 
position of the doer (Whichcote), concil- 
iates love, is generous and noble. See 


Cusp. IV. 9. 


EAP eA Ss). 


105 


” ” > \ \ 7 x ~ ' 
evpnua, €l TIS apeT) Kal el TLS ETaWwos, TavTa NoyiecSe: 
9 & Kai éwdSere Kal TapedaBeTe Kat nKovcaTe Kal eldete ev euoi, 


la) / 5, a < ‘ a > / 4 ri n 
TavTa TpdcceTe* Kat 0 Oeos THs eipyvys EoTaL wey VULav. 


the good exemplifications of 7d mpoo¢u- 
Aes, in Whichcote, Serm. xxv. Vol. ry. 
p- 88 sq. etpnpmal ‘of 
good report ;’ not merely ‘que bonam 
famam pariunt’ (Grot., Calv.), but, in 
accordance with the more literal mean- 
ing of the word, ‘ well-sounding’ (Luth.), 
‘of auspicious nature when spoken of,’ 


o 

Syriac me [laudabilia], — those 
‘great and bright truths’ in relation to 
God, ourselves, and our fellow-men, 
which sound well of themselves (loquun- 
tur res), and command belief and enter- 
tainmeut, Whichcote, p. 108 sq. 

ef tis apeth] ‘whatever virtue there 
be,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 107, or more accu- 
rately ‘there is,’ Alf., it being assumed 
that there is such; see Latham, Lnglish 
Lung. § 614 (ed. 3), and comp. Words- 
worth in doc. : recapitulation of the fore- 
going, with ref. perhaps to all the epithets 
except the last, which seems to be gen- 
eralized by the following €mavos. “Apeti) 
[from a root AP- and connected with 
Sanser. vri, ‘ protegere,’ Pott, tym. 
Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 221, Donalds. Crat. 
§ 285] is only found elsewhere in the 
N. T. in 2 Pet. i. 5 (in reference to man ; 
compare Wisdom iy. 1) and 1 Pet. ii. 9, 
2 Pet. i. 3 (in ref. to God; comp. Hab. 
iii. 2, Isaiah xlii. 8, al.) : it designates, 
as Meyer observes, ‘ moral excellence in 
feeling and action’ (4 tay Kad@v vous(o- 
pévwv éeumetpia, Hesych.), and is opposed 
to kaxia, Plato, Republ 1v. 444 p, 445 c: 
see Whichcote, Vol. 1v. p. 120. 
ématvos| ‘praise;’ not ‘id quod est 
laudabile,’ Calv., or, ‘ea que laudem 
apud homines mereantur,’ Est.,— but 
‘praise,’ in its simple sense, which, as 
Whichcote observes, ‘ regularly follows 
upon virtue, and is a note of it and a 
piece of the reward thereof,’ p. 132. ‘The 


addition after @raw. with. 
DIE‘FG; Clarom., some mss. of Vulg., 
al., is an interpolation properly rejected 
by all modern editors, 
Aoyl Cease] ‘think on,’ ‘take account 
of, not however merely ‘bear them in 
your thoughts,’ ‘meditate’ (Alf.), but 
“use your faculties upon them,’ ‘ horum 
rationem habete,’ Beng. ; compare 1 Cor. 
xiii. 5, and see Whichcote, p. 138. 

9. & xa] ‘ which also:’ exemplifica- 
tion of the foregoing in the apostle him- 
self; totto didacKaAlas aploryns, To ev 


eTLOTHUNS 


TACOS Tas Tapaweoeow EavTdy Tapéexew 
turov, Chrysost. The first «at is ascen- 
sive (‘facit transitionem a generalibus 
(Goa) ad Paulina,’ Beng.), — not ‘et,’ 
Vulg. (Syr., Copt. omit), but ‘ etiam,’ 
Luth., the other three simply copulative, 
the sentence falling into two portions 
(€udS- Kat mapedA. Akovo. Kab €f5.) con- 
nected by xal, each of which again is 
similarly inter-connected: ‘duo priora 
verba ad doctrinam pertinent, duo reli- 
qua ad exemplum,’ Estius; compare 
Theod., kat dia t&v Adywy buds edibaka, 
Kal dit TOY Tpayudtwy brédeta. Soalso 
Van Heng., Mey., Wiesinger, al. 
maperAdBere| ‘received;’ not, how- 
ever, in a purely passive (Galat. i. 12, 
1 Thess. ii. 13), but, as the climactic or- 
der of the words (compare jKotc. rad 
ei5.) seems to suggest, with a somewhat 
active reference {John i. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 
1); compare Dion.-Halic. 1. p. 44, Aéyw 
& mapa Tav eyxwpiwy mapéAaBoy (que ab 
incolis percepz), and the somewhat simi- 
lar dvadaBeiv év kapdia, Job xxii. 22. 
The distinction of Grot. ‘ éuddere signifi- 
cat primam institutionem: mapeAdBere 
exaciiorem doctrinam’ (éyypadws, The- 
oph., —but qu. reading) seems lexically 
doubtful: for examples of mapad. see 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 222. 


14 


106 


I rejoiced in your renewed 
aid; yetI am content and 


PHIEIPPIANS; 


Cuapr. IV. 10. 


0° Eyapny oé év Kupim peyddos, ote 5 


want not. Ye have freely qroré GyeSaNETE TO UTEP Eu“oU ppovelv ef’ Kab 


supplied my needs, and 
God shall supply yours. 


jxovcaTe does not refer to any form 
of teaching or preaching (‘refertur ad 
familiares sermones,’ Grot., Hammond), 
but, as the division of members, noticed 
above, seems to require, to the example 
which the apostle had set them when he 
was with them ;—this they heard from 
others, and further saw for themselves. 
Ey éuo thus belongs more especially to 
the two latter verbs, the prep. ev denot- 
ing the sphere, and as it were substratum 
of the action; sce notes on Galat. i. 24, 
and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 545. 

rTavTa wpdooete] Parallel to the 
preceding Tatra AoyiCeove, without how- 
ever suggesting any contrast between 
‘acting’ and ‘thinking ;’ Aoyi¢. (see 
notes) having a distinctly practical ref- 
erence; see Meyer zn loc. 

kar 6 @eds K.7.A.] ‘and (so) the God 
of peace ;? compare ver. 7, where ral has 
a similarly consecutive force, and sce 
notes on ver.12. The expression 6 Oeds 
Tis eip. admits of different explanations 
according to the meaning assigned to 
eipqvn, see Reuss, Thél. Chrét. 1v. 18, 
Vol. 11. p. 201. Here there seems no 
reason to depart from the meaning as- 
signed in ver. 7; the gen. being a form 
of the gen. of content, or (which is nearly 
allied to it) of the characterizing attribute ; 
sec Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115, and 
comp. Andrewes, Serm. xv111. Vol. 11. 
p. 84 (A.-C. Libr.). 

10. éxdpnyv dé] ‘Now I rejoiced:’ 
transition to more special matters, the 5¢ 
being wetaBarindy (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 
I. p. 165), and marking the change to a 
new subject ; efta xa) rep) Tay Teupder- 
Tov Tap avTay ypdper Xpnudtwy, Theod. 
The addition év Kupiw serves to define 
the nature of the joy; it was neither 
selfish nor earthly, it was im his Lord 
and without Him was not; see notes on 


ch, iii. 1. H5n wore] ‘now 
at length, ‘tandem aliquando,’ Vulg., 
Rom. i.10; more fully expressed in Aris- 
toph. Z?an. 931, #8n wor’ ev pape xpdve, 
— #5n acquiring that meaning from ref. 
to something long looked for; see Har- 
tung, Partik. %3n, 2.4, Vol. 1. p. 238. 
De Wette adopts the translation ‘ jetzt 
einmal,’ ‘jam aliquando’ (comp. Plato, 
Symp. p. 216 EB), on the ground that the 
more usual transl. involves a tacit re- 
proach. This is not the case. The 
apostle, as the Philippians well knew, in 
all cases preferred maintaining himself: 
now, however, his captivity seemed to 
call for their aid ; compare Neand. Phi- 
lipp. p. 25. 

AeTe K.T.A.] 


Aveda 
‘put forth new shoots, 
Jlourished again, in respect of your solici- . 
tude for me;’ $refloruistis pro me sen- 
tire,’ Vulgate, and less literally, Syriac ~ 

a. > v 
Ove) ~2 fas olaoly [ut 
ceepistis curam habere mei]. There is 
some little difficulty both in the construc- 
tion and the exegesis. The verb ava- 
SdAAew may be either transitive (Ezek. 
xvii. 24, Eeclus. i. 18), or tntransitive 
(Psalm xxviii. 7, Wisdom iv. 4). In 
the former case the construction is plain 
(7d drép x. 7. A. being a simple accusa- 
tive after the verb), but the exegesis un- 
satisfactory, as the avaddAAew would ap- 
pear dependent on the will of the Phi- 
lippians, which the context certainly 
seems to contradict. In the latter, adopt- 
ed by Vulg., Copt., Syr., and the Greck 
commentators the exegesis is less diffi- 
cult, but the construction somewhat am- 
biguous. LEither (a) 7d brép euod is the 
aceus. object. after ppovety, the verb it- 
self being somewhat laxly appended to’ 
aveddr., Beng., Mey., Alf.; or (b) 7d 
dmép euod ppoveiv is the accus. of the 


.Cuar. IV. 11. 
€ppovetre, nKatpeto se Oé. 


quantitative object (notes on Eph. iv. 15) 
dependent on dveddAete, Winer, Gram. 
§ 44. 1, p. 284, Wiesing., Bisp., and ap- 
parently Chrysost. and Theophyl. (who 
interpolates eis). Of these (a) is artifi- 
cial and contrary to the current and se- 
quence of the Greek: (b) is simple and 
intelligible, but certainly involves the 
difficulty that the following clause (if we 
retain the proper and obvious reference 
of eg’ &) will in fact be éppovetre ém) 74 
bmep éuod ppovetv. As, however, this 
logical ditiiculty may be diluted by ob- 
serving that ppovety is not used exactly 
in the same sense in the two clauses, — 
7d brep euod pp. in fact coalescing to form 
a new idea, —and as (a) is not only ar- 
tificial, but involves an undue emphasis 
on 7d imép éuod, we somewhat confident- 
ly adopt (L): so Wiesing. and Bisping. 
Lastly, aveddAere does not involve any 
censure (871 mpdétepov bytes avdnpol eua- 
pavSnoav, Chrysost.): the time during 
which jxapodyto was the period of un- 
avoidable torpor ; when the suitable time 
and opportunity came, avéSadov, comp. 
Andrewes, Serm. xv111. Vol. 111. p. 99 
(A.-C. Libr.). The rare aor. 
aves. is noticed by Winer, § 15, Buttm. 
Trreg. Verbs, 8. v. SdAAw. 

ed @| ‘for which, ‘with a view to 
which,’ ‘in contemplation of which ;’ 
the ém) marking the object contemplated : 
not ‘ sicut,’ Vulg., Syr., ‘in quo,’ Copt., 
interpretations which obscure the proper 
force of the prepositions. On the mean- 
ings of é¢’ g, see the notes on ch. iii, 12. 
kal éeppovetre| ‘ye also were anxious, 
careful ;’ imperf., marking the continu- 
ance of the action, to which the xa} adds 
a further emphasis: ‘ your care for me 
was of no sudden growth, it did not show 
itself just when the need came, — far 
from it, you were also anxious long be- 
fore you dvedddere.’ The omission of 
wev after eppor. gives, as Meyer observes, 


PHIELIPPIANS:. 


107 


M1 ody dre Kay botépnow réeyw" Ey 


a greater vigor to the antithesis; see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, compare 
notes on Gal, ii. 15. 
Akatpetose] ‘ye were lacking opportu- 
nity ;’ t. e. “it was not from any barren- 
ness on your part,’ Wordsw. ’Arap. (an 
dr. Aeydu.) is a word of later Greek, the 
opposite of which is eviapety (ev oXoAjjs 
éxeuv), a form equally condemned by the 
Atticists; Lobeck, Phryn. p. 125, Thom. 
M. p. 830. Chrysostom refers the term: 
specially to the temporal means of the 
Phil. ov evxere év xepalv, ovde ev apdo- 
via fire, and urges the popular use of 
axaup. in that sense. It may have been 
so; it seems, however, safer to preserve 
the ordinary temporal reference; see 
above. 
ll. obx Sri] ‘not that, ‘I do not 
mean that :’ see notes on ch. iii. 12, Wi- 
er, Gr. § 64.6, p. 526. The apostle 
does not wish his joy at this proof of 
their sympathy to be misunderstood as 
mere satisfaction at being relieved from 
present want or pressure. kay 
botépnoty| ‘in consequence of want,’ 
‘propter penuriam,’ Vulg., sim. Syriac 


vv. > 
eras ja? \WfiSo [propterea quod 


defuerit mihi]; see notes on chap. ii. 3, 
and on Tit. iii. 5, where this meaning of 
kata is briefly investigated. Van Heng., 
to preserve the more usual meaning of 
the prep., gives borépyow a concrete ref- 
erence, ‘ut more receptum est penuriz ;’ 
this is artificial and unnecessary. The 
meaning is simply od dia tiv euhv xpelav, 
Theodoret ; ‘ notio secundum facile tran- 
sit in notionem propter,’ Kiihner, Xen- 
oph. Mem. 1. 3. 12. 
yap €uasor| ‘forl for my part have 
learned,’ not ‘learned,’ Alf., which repre- 
sents the action as too remote to suit the 
English idiom. In the Greek nothing 
more is said than that the warddvew took 
place after a given time (see Donalds, 


> A 
eyo 


108 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Caap.-IV. 12. 


‘ 


2 fal 
yap EwaXov év ois eiwt adtapens eivar. © ofda Kal tatrewovo Sat, 


Gr. § 482) ; whether it does or does not 
last to the present time is left unnoticed ; 
see especially Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 16 
sq. The éy® is emphatic, ‘ quidquid 
alii sentiunt aut cupiunt,’ and guaSoy, as 
the tenor of the verse seems to indicate, 
refers to a teaching derived, not ‘ divini- 
tus,’ Beng., but, from the practical ex- 
periences of life ; 51 ray evayTiwy ddetwr, 
Teipay eAaBov ikavty, Theod. 
év ois eipl| ‘in what state I am:’ 
not, on the one hand, with reference 
merely to his present state, which is too 
limited. — nor on the other hand, with 
reference to any possible state, ‘ in quo- 
cunque statu sim,’ Raphel (compare 
Auth.), which would require ay, — but 
with reference to the state in which he is 
at the time of consideration ; almost ‘in 
every state that I come into. The 
expression éy ois (no ellipse of xpfua- 
ow, Wolf, al.), is copiously illustrated 
by Wetstein in /oc.; see also Kypke, 
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 319. 
avrdpKns] ‘content,’ ‘ut sufficiat mihi 
id quod est mihi,’ Syr. (compare Heb. 
xiii. 5, dprotjevor Tots wapovow), literally 
self-supporting,’ ‘independent,’ the op- 
posite being, as Meyer observes, mpoc- 
des HAAwy, Plato, Tim. 33D; compare 
Arist. Ethic. Nic. 1.5, 7 rédevov aryaSdv 
avrapres eivat Soret: see notes on 1 Tim. 
vi. 6, and Barrow, Serm. xxxvi. Vol. 
11. p. 404. The practical inferences de- 
ducible from this verse are well stated 
by Sanderson, Serm. v. (ad Aul.). 
12. of8a Kat tamery.| ‘I know 
(how) also to be abased :’ second member 
of the climax (@uaSov x. 7. A., oda Kk. T.X., 
pewtnua xk. 7. A.) explaining more in de- 
tail the preceding év ots ciul adrdpk. elvar: 
the apostle, as Andrewes well says, ‘had 
stayed affections.’ The first «ad thus 
serves to annex the special instance (ta- 
mew.) to the more general statement (sce 
notes on Eph. vy. 18, Winer, Gr. § 53.3, 


p- 388, ed. 6), the second appends to 
Tamew. its opposite, and is thus copula- 
tive and indirectly contrastive. The use 
of «al inthe N. T., as the Aramaic 9 
would have led us @ priori to suppose, is 
somewhat varied. Though all are re- 
ally included in the two broad distine- 
tions et and etiam (see especially Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635), we may perhaps 
conveniently enumerate the following 
subdivisions. Under the first (et) kad 
appears as, (a) simply copulautive; (B) 
adjunctive, i. e. either when the special is 
annexed to the general as here, Mark i. 
5, Eph. vi. 19, al., or conversely the gen- 
eral to the special, Matthew xxvi. 59 ; 
(y) consecutive, nearly ‘and so,’ ‘verse 
9,1 Thessalonians, iv. 1, compare James 
ii. 23, Matthew xxiii. 32, al. Under 
the second (etiam) kat appears as, (8) 
ascensive, ‘even,’ a very common and 
varied usage (compare notes on Ephe- 
sians, i. 11), or conversely, descensive, 
Gal. iii. 4, Eph. v. 12, where see notes ; 
(e) explanatory, approaching nearly to 
‘namely,’ ‘that is to say,’ John i. 16, 
Gal. ii. 20, vi. 16, where see notes; (¢) 
comparative, especially in double-mem- 
bered clauses, see notes on Eph. vy. 23; 
to all which we may perhaps add a not 
uncommon use of «al, which may be 
termed (7) its contrasting force, as here 
(24 nat), and more strongly, Mark xii. 
12, 1 Thess. ii. 18; compare 1 Cor. ix. 
5, 6 (2% xat). Insuch a case the parti- 
cle is not adversative, as often asserted, 
but copulative and contrasting ; the op- 
position arises merely from the juxtapo- 
sition of clauses involving opposing or 
dissimilar sentiments. These seven 
heads apparently include all the more 
common uses of xa in the N. T.; for 
farther examples see the well arranged 
list in Bruder, Concord. s.v. kat, and the 
much improved notice in the sixth ed. 
of Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. The 





Cuar. IV.'12, 13. 


EeLrurPrrilaAa ws. 


109 


x A tal Va x 
oida Kal Trepiocevew* Ev TravTi Kal ev TaoW pemnLal, Kal yopTa- 


N la) ‘ Fi 2 \ ¢ a Sy, 13 , 
feaSar Kat TELVAV,. Kab TEPlooevely Kat VOTEPELT al. TTAVTG 


reading 5€ (ota 5¢) of Rec. has scarcely 
any authority, and is rightly rejected by 
apparently all modern editors. 
meptaaevery| ‘to abound.’ The op- 
position between ztamey. and mepicc. is 
not exacily perfect (contrast Matth. 
Xxill. 12, 2 Cor. xi. 7, and above, Phil. 
ii. 8, 9), but still need not involve a de- 
parture from the lexical meaning of ei- 
ther word. The former (razeww.) is more 
general (‘to be cast down,’ —not ex- 
pressly, Auwrreiv, Gicum., and sim. 
even De W.), but obviously includes 
the idea of the pressure and dejection 
arising from want (comp. AZth.); the 
latter is more specific. The paraphrase 
of Pelag. (cited by Meyer) is thus per- 
fectly satisfactory, ‘ut nec abundantia 
extollar, nec frangar inopia. 

év wavTl kal év macty| ‘in every- 
thing and in all things, ‘in omni et in 
omuibus,’ Clarom., Goth., not ‘ ubique 
et in omnibus,’ Vulg., Auth.,— an as- 
sumed ellipsis of témw (Chrys. supplies 
xpévw) which cannot be substantiated 
any more than that of av3peHrots ( Beng.) 
after maow ; compare 2 Cor.ix.8. The 
expression seems designed to be per- 
fectly general and inclusive, év may7) 
mpdyp. Kal évy maot Tos wapeuminrouct, 
Phot. ap. Gicum. me mUn- 
wat] ‘L have been initiated, fully taught,’ 
‘institutus sum,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt. ; 


° ean 
La wH5—e50 [exercitatus sum] Syr., 


‘assuetus sum,’ /dth. ;—climactic, see 
above. The word is an am. Aeydu. in 
the N. T., and appears used, not in its 
primary sense, ‘disciplina arcana imbutus 
sum,’ Beng. (wvodpevos: uvorarywyobpe- 
vos, Hesych.), but in its derivative sense, 
-*I have been fully instructed’ (unos: 
udanots, Kathxnots, Hesych.), with per- 
haps some reference to the practical mode 
in which the knowledge was acquired ; 


meipay amdvrwy €X@, Phot. ap. CEcum. ; 
see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 379 
sq. As mvetoda: is used with an accus. 
of the thing (Plato, Symp. p. 209 », and 
see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), 
more rarely with a gen. (Heliod. Zthiop. 
1. 17, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 651 note) 
or dat. (Lucian, Demon. 11), some mod- 
erm commentators (Mey., Alf.) join éy 
mavtT) x. T. A. with the infinitives. This 
is harsh and somewhat hypercritical ; 
pveioSae appears with a prep. (kat&) in 
3 Mace. ii. 30, and is probably so to be 
joined here; so Syr., Vulg., Clarom., 
Goth., and appy. Copt., th. 

metvay] Later form for rewjy, see Wi- 
ner, Gram. § 13. 3, p. 71, Thom. M. p, 
699: ‘vulgaris horam verborum scrip- 
tura cum ingressu Macedonici evi, ten- 
uis scaturiginis instar, hic ibi emicat,’ 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 61. The verb xop- 
Td(w, properly used in ref. to animals 
(Hesiod, Op. 454, Aristoph. Par, 176, 
Plato, Ltep, 11. p. 872 D, comp. 1x. p. 
586 D), is found always in the N. Test. 
(except Rev. xix. 21), and very com- 
monly in later writers, in simple ref. to 
men. 

13. rdvta ioxdw)] ‘I can do all 
things,’ — not ‘all this,’ Hammond on 
1 Cor. xiii. 7, ‘omnia memorata,’ Van 
Heng., but ‘all things,’ with the most 
inclusive reference, marking the transi- 
tion from the special to the general. 
Bernard (Serm. Lxxxv.) well says, ‘ ni- 
hil omnipotentiam Verbi  clariorem 
reddit, quam quod omnipotentes facit 
omnes qui in se [eo] sperant;’ see a 
good sermon on this text by Hammond, 
Serm, x1v. p. 297 (A.-C. Libr.). Mdyra 
is the accus. of the ‘ quantitative’ object 
after icxéw (Gal. v. 6, James v. 16, Wis- 
dom xvi. 20), defining the measure and 
extent of the action; see Madvig, Synt. 
§ 27. 


ev T@ évivy.] ‘in 


110 


PHILIPPEANS: 


Cuar. IV. 14, 15. 


> 7, > tal > a / 14 \ n ) fe 
icxim év TS evOuvamodvTi pe. TANVY KAADS ETTOLNTATE TUYKOL- 


vavncavres wou TH Srirver. 


5 oidate € kal tpeis, Pirvrmyjorot, 


drt €v apxh Tod evayyeXiou, OTe €E&7pASov avro Maxedovias, ovdenia 


Him that giveth me inward strength ;’ not 
‘per eum,’ Beza, but ‘in Him,’ in vital 
and living union with Him who is the 
only source of all spiritual Stvauis ; com- 
pare 1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 17, and 
Ignat. ad Smyrn. § 4. The late form 
évduvauow occurs six times in St. Paul’s 
Epistles, in Acts ix. 22, and Heb. xi. 34 
(see notes on 1 Tim. i. 12), Psalm lii. 7, 
and eccl. writers. The simple form oc- 
curs Col. i. 11, Psalm Ixviii. 31, and is 
noticed by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605 note. 
The interpolation of Xpiord after pe 
(Rec.) is well supported [D?EFGKL; 
Boern., Syr. (both), Goth., al.; Gr. Ff], 
but seems due to 1 Tim. i. 12, and is 
rejected by most modern editors. 

14. rAhv x. 7. A.] * Notwithstanding 
ye did well ;’ clearly not ‘ye have done 
well,’ Peile, — the event referred to be- 
longed definitely to the past. In this 
verse and the following, which in fact 
present the positive side to the negative 
ovx $871, verse 11, the apostle guards 
against any appearance of slighting the 
liberality of his converts (Chrys., Caly.), 
by specifying what peculiarly evoked 
his joy, — the sympathy of the Philippi- 
ans, 7) cuykowwrijcat wou TH SAwe. For 
the explanation of Aj see notes on ch. 
i. 18, iii. 16, and for examples of the 
idiomatic kad@s em. with a part. (Acts 
x. 83), see Elsner, Obs Vol. ii. p. 257. 
ovykotvwy. k.7. A.) ‘in that ye com- 
municated, had fellowship, with my afflic- 
tion,’ see notes on Eph. v. 11: specifica- 
tion of their action viewed in its moral 
aspects ; buav TodTo Képdos- Kowvwyo) yap 
Tay euav éyéverSe TtaSnudtwv, Theod. 
The action of the participle is contempo- 
raneous with that of the finite verb (see 
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, notes on 
Eph. i. 9, comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 6. b, 
p- 316), and specifies the act in which 


the kaAdés émorhoare was evinced. It is 
scarcely necessary to add that SAhve: is 
not either here or 2 Cor. viii. 13, ‘ penu- 
riz’ (‘necessity,’ Peile), but simply ‘trib- 
ulationis,’ Vulg. : the gift of the Philipp. 
is regarded from a higher point of view, 
as an act of ministering sympathy. 

15. of8are SE kat byu.| ‘ Morcover 
yourselves also know ;’ notice of their for- 
mer liberality in the way of gentle con- 
trast. Aé here does not merely annex 
an ‘enlargement upon’ the preceding 
verse (Peile, ‘and,’ Scholef.), but passes 
to earlier acts, which it puts in juxtapo- 
sition with the present ; see notes on Gal. 
iii. 8, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, 
362, who has well discussed this parti- 
cle, with the single exception that he 
denies any connection between it and 
the numeral, which seems philologically 
certain; Donalds. Cratyl. § 155. The 
kat suggests a comparison with the apos- 
tle, ‘ye too, as well asI;’ comp. notes 
on ver. 12. SidkinmmH ctor} 
‘men of Philippi.’ The mention by 
name is emphatic (compare 2 Corin. vi. 
11); it does not mark merely affection 
(‘my Philippians,’ Bisp.), but specifies 
them, gratefully and earnestly, as the 
well remembered and acknowledged do- 
ers of the good deed. Beng. goes rather 
too far when he says, ‘ innuit antitheton 
ad alias eeclesias;’ the comparison is 
instituted in what follows. 
bre €&HADov| ‘when I went out,’ 
‘quando profectus sum,’ Vulg., scil. at 
the time that event took place. It is 
doubtful whether the apostle alludes (a) 
to the assistance supplied to him when 
at Corinth, and especially mentioned 2 
Cor. xi. 9; or (b) to that supplied pre- 
viously to, and possibly at, his depart- 
ure, Acts xvii. 14. If (a), then e&jASav 
must be regarded as having a pluperfect 


Cuap. LV. 16. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


111 


prot €xxAnola éxowwavncen els NOyoV Socews Kal Ajprfews, et pw) LpEts 


/ 16 (24 ed 4 NEF (3 Ni ry) > \ f 
povot, 1 rT Kat ev Occoadoviky Kal arra€® Kal is els THY YpELaV joe 


reference (Van Heng., De W., see Pa- 
ley, Hor. Puu!. v11. 3), —an interpreta- 
tion to which no serious grammatical ob- 
jection can be urged (Jelf, Gram. § 404, 
Winer, Gram. § 40. 5; see, however, 
Fritzsch, de Aor. p. 16), but which seems 
at variance with ev apxn ToD evayy-, 
which, as Meyer observes, refers the 
event to the earliest period of their con- 
nection with the apostle. Itseems safer, 
then, to adopt (b) ; so Meyer, Alf., and 
Bisp. éekKoLVaynoev 
k. T.A.] ‘ communicated with (‘dealt with,’ 
Andrewes) me in regard of the account 
(ver. 17) of giving and receiving ;’ «is 
Adyoy not being taken in the more lax, 
yet defensible sense, ‘ ratione habita,’ 
Van Heng. (comp. 2 Mace. i. 14, Thu- 
cyd. iii. 46), but, as eis Adyor below seems 
to suggest, in the stricter meaning, ‘ in 
ratione dati et accepti,’ Vulg., Gothic, 
Copt.; compare Cicero, Lal. xvr. (58), 
‘ratio acceptorum et datorum.’ The 
exact meaning of the words is slightly 
doubtful. Chrys., Theoph., nearly all 
the earlier, and the great majority of re- 
cent expositors refer the giving and re- 
ceiving to each party ; épds mas exowwd- 
ynoay, cis Adyov Sécews TaY capKiKGy Ka) 
AnWews TOY Trevuwatin@v, Chrys. ; comp. 
1 Cor. ix. 11. Grotius and others limit 
the giving to the Philippians and the re- 
ceiving to the apostle; ‘ego sum in ves- 
tris expensi tabulis, vos in meis accepti.’ 
Meyer (followed by Alf.) extends this 
so far that each party is supposed to 
open an account with the other, but that 
the debtor side was vacant in their ac- 
count, the creditor in his. This last in- 
terpr. seems so artificial, and the first so 
fairly analogous with the spiritual ap- 
plication in ver. 17, that we see no reason 
for departing from the ordinary interpre- 
tation; so recently Wiesing., and Bis- 
ping. Examples of the expression Afis 


ka) Sdors are cited by Wetstein in loc. ; 
compare also Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 
804. For the construction of rowwvéew, 
see notes on Gal. vi. 6. 

16. dri] ‘ because,’ — argumentative 
(not demonstrative, ‘that,’ Paley, Van 
Heng., Rilliet, al.), the object of this 
verse being to justify the statement, év 
apxn Tod evayy. (ver. 15), by noticing a 
very early period when assistance was 
sent to the apostle from Philippi. Even 
before he had left Macedonia they had 
twice ministered to his necessity: so 
Goth. (‘unte’), and perhaps, Vulg., Cla- 
rom., ‘quia:’ the other Vy. are ambig- 
uous; uth. omits. The other interpre- 
tation of dz: reverses the order of time, 
and disturbs the logical sequence. 
kal év @ea.c.| ‘even in Thessalonica,’ 
not ‘ to Thessalonica,’ Vulg., Claroman., 
but, ‘ when I was in that city.’ There is 
here no ellipse of dvr: (Beza), nor a di- 
rect instance of the preposition of rest in 
combination with a verb of motion (Mey., 
Alf.), but only a case of simple and in- 
telligible brachylogy, Winer, Gr. § 50. 
4, p. 368. The ascensive xa) is referred 
by the early commentators to the impor- 
tance of Thessalonica ; év Ty wntpomdAet 
KaShmevos Tapa THs mikpas érpépero md- 
Aews, Chrys. This is doubtful; it seems 
more naturally ascensive in reference to 
time, ‘even at so early a period as when 
Iwas at Thessalonica;’ compare Har- 
tung, Partik. nal, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. 135. 
kal &mak kat Sts] ‘both once and 
twice, i.e. ‘not once only, but twice,’ 
emphatic: see 1 Thessal. i. 18, Nehem. 
xiii. 30, 1 Mace. iii. 830, and Herod. 11. 
121. 2, 111. 148. Meyer cites as the an- 
tithesis obx Gat ovdé Sis, Plato, Clitoph. 
p- 4108. On kal—nral, see notes on 1 
Tim. iv. 10. 
eis thy xpelav] ‘to supply my ne- 
cessity; eis marking the ethical desti- 


112 


PHTILIPPIANSE. 


Cuap: IV. 17,.18% 


a ¢ * a \ a 
érréuapate. ™ ody dtu emifnT@ 70 Sopa, ddAra ETrLEnTa Tov KapTrov 


ww / ? / is rn 
TOV TAEOValoVTAa Els NOYOV VELOY. 


nation of the contribution}; so eis 7d 
evayy-, 2 Corinthians ii. 12, ‘to preach 
the gospel ;? see examples in Winer, Gr. 
§ 49. a, p. 354. The article marks the 
necessity the apostle then felt, 2. e. ‘my 
necessity,’ Syr., al. Chrysostom calls 
attention to the absence of the pronoun, 
ok elme Tas euas [xpelas] GAA’ amAds, 
Tov ceuvod emimedduevos : this is inexact, 
as the art. fully performs the function of 
the pronoun; Middl. Art. v. 1. 3. 

17. ob}x Sr] ‘not that;’ added, as 
before ver. 11, to avoid a misunderstand- 
ing ; see notes on ch. iii. 12; ‘sic laudat 
Philippensium liberalitatem ut tamen 
sinistram cupiditatis immodicz opinio- 
nem semper ase rejiciat,’ Calvin. 
émi(nt a ‘I scek after,’ not ‘ studiose 
quero,’ Bretschneid., nor even ‘ insuper 
quero,’ Van Heng., who has an elabo- 
rate, but not persuasive note on this 
word: the émi, as in émmoSely k. T.A., 
only marks the direction of the action, 
see notes on ch. i. 8, and on 2 Tim. i. 4. 
In many cases, in this and similar com- 
pounds, the directive force is so feebly 
marked that the difference between the 
simple and compound is hardly appre- 
ciable ; compare Winer, de Verb. Comp. 
I, 22, 
the present, —the ‘allzeitiges Prasens’ 
of Kriiger (Sprachi. § 53.1), as marking 
the regular and characteristic mode of ac- 
tion ; see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 1, p. 370, 
and compare the English present, in 
which, however, habitude is more strong- 
ly marked than in the Greek ; Latham, 
Eng. Lang. § 507 (ed. 4). 

Td 5dpa] ‘ the gift,’ — not exactly ‘ the 
gift which they had [now] sent him,’ 
Scholef. Hints, p. 108, but ‘ the gift in 
the particular case in question’ (Meyer, 
Alford), almost in English idiom ‘any 
gift.’ The Coptic [taio] seems to con- 
vey the idea of a recompense, ‘ honora- 


Meyer rightly calls attention to ° 


AQv; dank ny , \ 
ATTEX@ O€ TAVTA KAL TTEPlLo- 


rium,’ GAAG Emi] ‘but 
I do seek, Alf.: the repetition of the 
same verb with aAAd, as in Rom. viii. 
15, Heb. xii. 18, adds force and empha- 
sis, and makes the primary meaning of 
aAA& (‘ aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus 
dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 1) still 
more apparent; compare Fritz. Rom. 
viii. 15. Toy Kapmoy 
k.7.A.] ‘the fruit which aboundeth to 
your account,’ tpav, ovx éuod, Chrys. ; 
i.e. the future divine recompense, which, 
on every fresh proof of their love, is rep- 
resented as being laid up to their account, 
As 
mAcovatew appears in all other cases in 
the N. T. to stand alone (2 Thess. i. 3 is 
doubtful; Alford cites it here as certain, 
but in his notes in doc. takes it different- 
ly), Van Heng. and De W. here connect 
eis with émi(n7r@. This seems an unnec- 
essary refinement; there is nothing in 
mAcova@w to render its connection with 
eis, as marking the destination of the 
mAcovacuds, either ungrammatical or un- 
natural: it is joined with éy [Plato], 
Locr. p. 103 A. The use of Adyos is 
here the same as in verse 15, not ‘ habit&é 
vestrum ratione,’ Van Heng., and cer- 
tainly not = eis suas (Rill.; compare 
Syr.), but ‘in rationem vestram,’ Vulg., 
i. e., dropping all metaphor, eis thy buer- 
épay owtnplay, Chrys.; compare Calvin 
in loc. 

18. dwméxw 5¢ wavra] ‘ But Ihave 
all I need ;’ ‘ though I seek not after the 
gift, I still have all things in abundance ; 
your liberality has left me to want noth- 
ing.’ The S¢ thus retains its proper op- 
positive force (not ‘ and now,’ Peile), and 
preserves the antithesis between the em- 
phatic améxw and the foregoing émi(nr@ ; 
amexw TdvTa, ovdev eri(ntATeov. “Améexw 
is neither barely ‘ habeo,’ Vulg., nor yet 
with any special forensic sense (accepti- 


6 kapmbs exetvors tikterat, Chrys. 


Cuar. IV. 18, 19. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


113 


. ceo, TeTANpwwar SeEdwevos Tapa "Etrappoditov ta Tap’ buor, 
dopa evwodias, Svalav Sexthy eddpectov TH Oecd. 6 SE Oeds 


latio) ‘ satis habeo,’ ‘I give you my ac- 
quittance ? Hammond on Mark xiv. 41; 
compare Chrys. @egev br. dpeAh ear) 
7d mpaiyuc.), but simply ‘acceptum teneo,’ 


Adsas [accepi] Syr., Copt., the prep. 


amd apparently having a slightly inten- 
sive force (‘significat actionis quendam, 
ut ita dicam, decursum, atque adeo in 
agendo perseverantiam,’ Winer, Verb. 
Comp. vi. p. 7), and marking the com- 
pleteness and definitive nature of the @xew ; 
compare Matth. vi. 2, 5, 16, Luke vi. 24, 
Philem. 15, Arrian, Zypict. 111. 24 [p. 
228, ed. Borh.] 7d yap evdamovodv amé- 
xew be? mdvra & SA, and compare Wi- 
ner, Gir. § 40. 4, p. 24 6. 

kal meoptaocetw| ‘and abound;’ ex- 
pansion and amplification of the preced- 
ing amréxw, ‘I have all I want and more 
than all,’ the following memAjpwma com- 
pleting the climax; ‘die Hille und 
Fiille habe ich,’ Meyer. To supply xa- 
pas after mewAnp. (Grot.) is to wholly 
mar the simplicity and climactic force of 
the sentence. deiduwevos 
x. tT. A.]| Temporal clause, ‘now that I 
have received,’ Peile, ‘posteaquam ac- 
cepi,’ Erasm.; compare Donalds. Gr. 
§ 573.sq. In the following words there is 
a slight variation of MSS. [A omits 
mapa Er.: FG, al. supply meupdévra af 
ter du@v], caused probably by the recur- 
rence of mapa: there is, however, no dif- 
ficulty ; duets ’Emappoditw édéxare, Ena- 
pediros éuol, Theodoret. 

dounhv evwdlas| ‘ a sweet-smelling sa- 
vor ;’ aceus. in apposition to the preced- 
ing 7a map tu@v; compare Eph. v. 2, 
and notes iz loc. The reference of Alf. 
to Kiihner, Gr. Vol. 11. p. 146, and the 
examples cited (Hom. JJ. xx1v.735, Eu- 
rip. Orest. 950) are not quite in point, as 
the apposition is not to the verbal action 
contained, in the sentence (Jelf, Gram, 


§ 580. 2) but simply to the accus. 74 ap’ 
tuey, which is thus further defined and 
characterized. It is doubtful whether 
the gen. evwolas is to be considered a gen. 
materiee (W., Gr. § 34. 2. b, p. 212 note, 
compare Arist. Rhet. 1.11) or a gen. of 
the characterizing quality (see Scheuerl. 
Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115); the latter is per- 
haps most simple and most in harmony 
with the Hebraistic tinge which seems to 
mark these kinds of gen. in the N. T.; 
compare Winer, Gr. /. c. (text). 
Suaiayv x. 7.A.| ‘a sacrifice acceptable 
(and) well pleasing to God ;’ not ‘an ac- 
cepted sacrifice such as is,’ etc., Peile, 
(comp. Syr.); both adjectives as well as 
the preced.ng dcpuiy ebwd. (comp. Ley. i. 
9,13) standing in connection with 7@ 
@c¢, which thus falls under the general 
head of the dative of ‘interest;’ see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4. The good 
deeds which the Philippians did towards 
the apostle become, from the spirit in 
which they were done (comp. Chrys.), 
an acceptable sacrifice to God Himself, 
It does not seem necessary with Johnson 
(Unbl. Saer. 11. 4, Vol. 1. p. 436 [A.-C, 
Libr.], compare Irenzus, Her. 1v. 18) 
to conclude that the alms brought by 
Epaphr. had been offered by the people 
at the altar: the sacrifice of alms is one 
of the spiritual and evangelical sacrifices 
specially noticed in the N. T., e.g. Heb. 
xiii. 16; see the comprehensive list in 
Waterland, Doct. of Euch. ch. x11. Vol. 
ly. p. 730. 

19. 6 5€ Oeds pov] Not without 
emphasis and an expression of hopeful 
trust, ‘qui meam agit causam,’ Van 
Heng.; see notes on chap. i. 3. 
TmAnpdaet x. 7-A.] ‘shall fulfil (with 
reciprocating reference to memA. ver. 18) 
every need of yours ;’ not in the form of 
prayer (émedxerat adrois, Chrys.), but of 
hopeful promise, the future rAnpécer be- 

15 


114 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. IV. 20, 21. 


/ cal a f lal 
pov TANpoce, Tacay YpElav LwaV KaTA TO TODTOS avTod év ddEn. 


ev Xpiotd “Incod. 76 5é Oc@ Kat tratpi jpav 4 dd£a eis Tods 


An a 
aidvas TOV ai@vev, auny. 


All here send you 21°? , 
greeting. AoracacNe 


ing distinctly predictive ; compare Rom. 
xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 18. 
The reading mAnpéca [DIFG; several 
mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.], followed by 
Theod., Theophylact, seems clearly a 
gloss. It is doubtful whether xpeiay is 
to be referred solely to temporal (Chrys.), 
or solely to spiritual (Theodor.) wants. 
The use of xpela and the preceding allu- 


sions are in favor of the former; the use 


of mAodtos and the immediate context, 
of the latter: the inclusive form of the 
expression seems to justify our uniting 
both. év 56én] ‘in glory ;’ 
not so much an instrumental (Meyer, 
Alf.) as a modal clause, closely in union 
with év Xp., the former pointing to the 
manner in which God will supply their 
wants, —not, however, merely ‘ magni- 
fice, splendide,’ Calv. (compare Beng.), 
but with reference to the element or the 
attribute in which the action will be 
evinced, —while év Xp. “Inc. specifies 
the ever-blessed sphere in which alone 
all is realized ; see notes on Ephes. ii. 7. 
So apparently Chrys., ofrw mepioceder 
iuiv Grayvra ore ev Sdin abtod Exe. 
Grotius and others (comp. th.) con- 
nect éy 66%) with rAodros ; this is gram- 
matically admissible, — the expression 
mwdouvte ey twt (1 Tim. vi. 18) justify- 
ing the omission of the article (see notes 
on Eph. i. 15),— and certainly deserves 
consideration, but the remark of Meyer, 
that wAodros is always used in the N. T. 
in such metaphorical expressions with a 
gen. of the thing (Rom. ii. 4, ix. 23, 2 
Cor. viii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18, ii. 7, iii. 16, 
Col. i. 27), and that we should have ex- 
pected kara 7d mAovTos Tis 5. avTod, 
seems to strike the balance in favor of 
mdnp. év 56&: So apparently Syr., but 


mavta ayov ev Xpiat@ ’Inood. 


these are cases in which the Vv. cannot 
safely be adduced on either side. 

kata Td WA.] ‘according to,’ i.e. ‘in 
accordance with the riches He has;’ 
compare notes on Eph. i.5. The clause 
involves a shade of modal reference, and 
marks 671 e¥xoAoy abt@ kat bvvardy, Kad 
Taxéws Tovey, Chrys. 

20. @cG nal wmarpt] ‘to God and 
our Father ;’ anticipatory doxology 
called forth by the preceding words. On 
the august title Ocds ka) watnp, see notes 
on Gal. i. 4. n déé€a] Scil. 
eM, not ZoTw; see notes on Ephesians 
i. 2. The article seems here to have its 
‘rhetorical’ force (Bernhardy, Syzt. v1. 
22, p. 315), and to mark the ddfa as that 
‘ which especially and peculiarly belongs 
to God ;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5, where 
this and the following expression, eis 
Tous aidvas Tov aidvwy, are briefly inves- 
tigated. On the two formule aidv tay 
aiévwv, and aidves Tov aidywy, see Har- 
less on Eph. iii. 21, with however the 
qualifying remarks in notes in loc. 

Ql. wdvta Gytov| ‘every saint:’ 
not ‘omnes sanctos,’ Syr., Copt., th., 
but ‘omnem sanctum,’ Vulg., Clarom. : 
it does not apply to the whole Church, 
but, as Beng. suggests, individualizes ; 
each one is specially saluted ; so Conyb., 
Wies., Alf. On the term &yos and its 
application in the N. T., see notes on 
Eph. i. 1. Tt is doubtful whether év Xp. 
is to be joined with adomdcacSe (compare 
Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Corin. xvi. 19) or with 
dyov (ch. i. 1); the former is adopted 
by Syr. (plural) and Theod. (6 rg Kupl@ 
"Inood moretwv) ; the latter by Mey. and 
several modern interpreters. As &ytos 
is connected in this Epistle with év Xp. 
(comp. Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 9, 10, 13), and 


Cuar. IV. 22, 23. 


PHIEEPPIANS. 


115 


: > fe ¢ a e \ > \ LO / 29 ? 28 ¢€ a de 
GoTaCOVTAL VMAS OL TLV Euol added Hoi. aoTragovTar Umas TaVTES 


egw 4 \ bd ay! an / 2 haya 
of dytot, wddwoTa O€ ot €x THS Kaicapos oikias. 


Benediction. 


TVEUMATOS VLAD. 


as doma¢. does not appear elsewhere used 
with év Xp. or év Xp. Ino., but only with 
év Kupiw, the latter is perhaps slightly 
the most probable. 
of civ éuol &deApoit] Those who 
were more immediately in communica- 
tion with the apostle, suitably and natu- 
rally specified before the inclusive mdvtes 
of &ytor in the following verse. The ap- 
parent difficulty between this and ch. ii. 
20, is simply disposed of by Chrys., ot 
mapaiterrat Kal TovTous GdeApovs KaAeiv. 
22. udAtoral| ‘especially ;’ they were 
naturally more in contact with the apos- 
tle than the other Christians at Rome, 
who were not among his immediate as- 
sociates. The primary force of uddura 
is alluded to in notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 
of éx THs K. oikias| ‘ those of Ce- 
sar’s household.’ ‘These words have re- 
ceived various interpretations. It seems 
most natural to regard them as denoting, 
not on the one hand, merely ‘ the Preeto- 
rian guards’ (Matth.), nor on the other, 
the ‘members of Nero’s family’ (comp. 
1 Cor. i. 16), Camer., Van Heng., and 
more recently, and it is to be feared with 
obvious reasons, Baur (Apost. Paulus, p. 
470), — who founds on this interpretation 
an argument against the genuineness of 
the Ep.,—but simply the oireto. (The- 
od.), the servants and retainers belong- 


*3°HT ydpis tod Kupiov ’Inood Xpiotod peta Tov 


ing to the emperor’s household; see 
Krebs, Obs. p. 332, Loesn. Obs. p. 358. 
It may thus seem not improbable that St. 
Paul was in confinement in or near to 
that barrack of the Preetorians which 
was attached to the palace of Nero 
(Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 510, ed. 2), 
but it does not necessarily follow that 
mpa:r@pioy in ch. i. 13 (see notes) is to be 
restricted to that smaller portion. The 
barracks within the walls were probably 
in constant communication with the 
camp without. See an interesting paper 
by Lightfoot, Journ. Class. Philol, 1857 
(March), p. 58 sq. 

23. weTa TOU mvedyu.| ‘with your 
spirit ;’ the ‘ potior pars’ of our compos- 
ite nature, the third and highest constit- 
uent of man: see notes on Gal. vi. 18, 
and on 2 Tim. iv. 22. The reading is 
not very doubtful: the more usual wera 
mavTwy suey is not strongly supported 
[KL; many mss.; Syriac (both), al.; 
Chrys., Theod.], while the text has de- 
cided external evidence [ABDEFG; 17. 
67.** 73. 80; Vulg., Clarom., Coptic, 
Mth. (Platt); many Ff.], and does not 
seem so likely to have been changed from 
mayTwyv juav as the converse. The addi- 
tion of yuay after Kupiov [ Rec. with DE ; 
Coptic, al.] has still less critical sup- 
port. 


- . ra 
ie: if 
f AEs | c 
Wing 


ri 


Oa 





THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 





INTRODUCTION. 


Tue profound and difficult Epistle to the Colossians was written by the 
apostle during his first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16 ; compare Introd. to 
1 Tim.), and, as far as we can gather from some of the expressions in the 
concluding chapter (ver. 3, 4), at a period of that captivity, when the apos- 
tle’s anticipations were not of so grave a character as they appear to us in the 
Epistle to the Philippians (ch. i. 20, 21, 30, i. 27; see Introd. to Philipp.), 
and when his restraint was probably less close (comp. Acts xxviii. 16 sq.) and 
his treatment more merciful (comp. ch. iv. 8 sq.). 

We may thus not improbably place it first in the third of the four groups 
(the Epistles of the first captivity) into which St. Paul’s Epistles may be con- 
veniently divided, and conceive it to have been written a very short time be- 
fore the Epistle to the Ephesians, and perhaps about the early part of the 
year A.D. 62. It was conveyed to the church of Colossee by Tychicus (ch. 
iv. 7, 8), who had received a similar commission with reference to the con- 
verts at Ephesus (Eph. vi. 21), and it not improbably reached its destination 
before the Epistle to the last-mentioned Church ; comp. Meyer, Komment. iib. 
Eph. p. 17. 

The Epistle seems to have been called forth by the information St. Paul 
had received from Epaphras (ch. iv. 12; Philem. 23), who, if not the actual 
founder of the Church of Colossee (Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 405), was 
most certainly one of the very earliest preachers of Christ in that city ; com- 
pare ch.i. 7 and notes in loc. Its object transpires very clearly, — an earnest 
desire on the part of the apostle to warn the Colossians against a system ot 
false teaching, partly Oriental and theosophistic in its character (ch. ii. 18), 
and partly Judaical and ceremonial (ch. ii. 16), which was’ tending on the 
one hand directly to obscure the majesty and glory of Christ (comp. ch. i. 15, 
ii. 8 sq-), and on the other, to introduce ritualistic observances, especially on 
the side of bodily austerities (ch. ii. 16-23), opposed alike to the simplicity 
and freedom of the gospel, and to all true and vital union with the risen Lord 
(ch. ii. 19, iii. 1). For further particulars see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 


420 INTRODUCTION. ; 


~ 


407 sq., where the sects to which these corrupters of the faith have been sup- 
posed to belong, and the peculiar nature of their tenets are very carefully 
discussed ; comp. also Smith, Dict. of Bible, Art. ‘ Ep. to the Colossians,’ Vol. 
I. p. 342. 

In reference to the genuineness and authenticity of this Epistle it may be 
said briefly that no doubts have been urged that deserve any serious consid- 
eration. Even if the external testimonies had been less clear and explicit 
than we find them to be (Ireneus, Her. 111. 14. 1, Clem.-Alex. Strom. I. p. 
$25, ed. Pott, Tertull. de Prescr. cap. 7, Origen, contr. Cels. v. 8), the inter- 
nal arguments derived from the peculiarities of style and expression, must 
have been pronounced by every sagacious critic as final and unanswerable. 
To class such an Epistle, so marked not only by distinctive peculiarities of 
style, but by the nerve, force, and originality of its argument, with the vague 
productions of later Gnosticism (Mayerhoff, Baur, al.) is to bewray such a 
complete want of critical perception that we can scarcely wonder that such 
views haye been both very generally and very summarily rejected; see 
Meyer, Einleitung, p. 7, Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 427 sq. As the latter 
writer very justly observes, the fabrication of such an Epistle would be ‘a 
phenomenon perfectly inexplicable’ (p. 428). 

The similarity between many portions of this Epistle and that to the Ephe- 
sians has often been noticed, and the claim to priority of composition much 
debated. With regard to the first point it may be again observed (see Introd. 
to Eph.) that the two Epistles were written closely about the same time, and 
addressed to two Churches sufficiently near to one another to have had 
many points of resemblance, and to have needed very similar forms of exhor- 
tation, especially in reference to the duties of social and domestic life. With 
regard to the second point it may be enough to say that the nature of the 
contents of the two Epistles seems to harmonize best with the opinion that 
the Epistle to the Colossians was first in order, and that the more directly 
individualizing and polemical preceded the more directly systematic and 
doctrinal; see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 346 sq., and compare notes on 
Eph. vi. 21. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


CHAPTER. I. 


Apostolic address and salu- 
tation. 


CuapTerR I. 1. awédor. Xp. "Inc.] 
“an apostle of Jesus Christ ;’ the (posses- 
sive) genitive denoting whose minister 
he was: see notes on Eph. i. 1, and for 
the meanings of améaredos, here obvi- 
ously in its higher and more especial 
sense, see notes on Gol. i. 1, and on Eph. 
iv. 11. The form of greeting in this Ep. 
closely resembles that to the Ephesians ; 
there are, however, as has been previ- 
ously observed (compare notes on Eph. 
i. 1, and see Riick. on Gai. i. 1), some 
differences in the addresses of St. Paul’s 
Epistles, especially in the apostle’s desig- 
nation of himself, which, though not in 
all cases easy to account for, can hard- 
ly be deemed accidental. We may 
thus classify these designations: in 1 
Thess. and 2 Thess., simply’ Tavaos ; 
in Philemon (very appropriately), 5éc- 
puos Xp. 71. ; in Phil., S0dA0s Oeod (asso- 
ciated with Timothy); in Titus, Soda. 
@cod andor. 5 X.71.; in Rom., doi. I. 
X. (Tisch. X. 71.) xantds aoc. ; in 1 
Cor. (kAntds am. Tisch., Rec., but not 
certain), 2 Cor., Ephes., Col., 2 Tim., 
amoot. X.71. Sid SeAhuaros Ocovd; in 1 
Tim. dmoor. X."1. kar’ éemrayhy ©. cw- 
Tipos huey kat X. 71. x. 7. A.; and lastly, 
with fullest titular distinction, in Galat., 

16 


AYAOZ dréctor0s Xpictod *Inaod 
dua Serjpwatos Ocod xai TipoSeos 6 


amdoT., ovx am avdpemwv ovde Sv avSp. 
x. 7. A. An interesting paper might be 
written on these peculiarities of designa- 
tion. 1a SeAhmaTos 
©«v%d] Added, probably, in thankful re- 
membrance of God’s grace, and in feel- 
ings of implicit obedience to His will; 
see notes on Eph. i. 1. Kar 
Tiu. 6 a@deAgp.| Timothy is simi- 
larly associated with the apostle in his 
greeting in 2 Cor. i. 1, Philem. 1, and, 
even more conjointly as to form of asso- 
ciation, Phil. i. 1, 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. 
i.,1: so also Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1, com- 
pare Gal. i. 2, and see notes in loc. It 
may be observed, however, that in 1 
Cor, Phil., and Philem., the apostle pro- 
ceeds in the singular, while here, 2 Cor. 
i, 3 (see Meyer), 1 and 2 Thessalon., he 
continues the address in the plural; see 
below, notes on ver. 8. It has been 
supposed that Timothy was also the 
transcriber of the Epistle (Steiger, Bisp. ; 
compare ch. iv. 18): this is possible, but 
nothing more. The title 6 adeAdds, as in 
1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, has no special 
reference to official (odKody kal amdaroAos, 
Chrys.), but simply to Christian brother- 
hood; Timothy was one of of ddeAgol, 
‘ der christliche-Mitbruder,’ De Wette. 


122 COLOSSIANS. Ce. os 


aderdpos 2 tois ev Koraccais aylows nai mictois adeddois év 
Xpictd. yxapis vpiv Kai eipyyyn aro Ocod matpos Huav. 


2. KoAagoais] So Rec. (but not Elz.), Lachm., and Tisch., with AB (C in 
subser.) K; more than 40 mss. ; Syr. (both), Copt; /&thiop. (Platt), Slav. (mss.) ; 
Origen, Theod., Chrysost. (mss.), Theophyl. (mss.), Suidas, al., to which may be 
added mss. in Herod. vir. 830 and Xenoph. Anab. 1.2.6. The more usual mode of 
spelling is found in B2DEFGL; numerous mss.; Vulg., Claroman., al.; Clem., 
Chrys., Theodoret (mss.), al.; Lat. Ff. (Mec., Meyer, al.). It can be proved by 
coins that the latter was the correct form (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 111. 147); still the 
external authority, especially as seen in the Vv., seems so strong, that KoAagoais 
can hardly be referred to a mere change of vowels in transcription found only in 
two or three of the leading MSS., but must be regarded as the, not improbably, 


provincial mode of spelling in the time of St. Paul. 


KoAoooais was an old emendation. 


2. KoAacoais]| Colosse or Colas- 
sx (see crit. note) was a city of Phrygia, 
on the Lycus (an affluent of the Mzean- 
der), near to, and nearly equidistant 
from the more modern cities of Hierapo- 
lis and Laodicea. It was anciently a 
place of considerable importance (éAcs 
peyaan, Herod. vit. 30; wdAts oikoupevn, 
evdaluwv Kal weydAn, Xenoph. Anab. I. 2. 
6), but subsequently so declined in com- 
parison with the commercial city of Apa- 
mea on the one side, and the strong, 
though somewhat shattered city of La- 
odicea on the other (ai weyiora Tay Kata 
Thy Ppvylay moAewr), as to be classed by 
Strabo (Geogr. x11. 8. 13, ed Kramer) 
only among the moAlcuata of Phrygia, 
though still, from past fame, classed by 
Pliny (Nat. Hist. v. 41) among the ‘ cel- 
eberrima oppida’ of that country ; “see 
Steiger, Hinl. § 2, p.17. It afterwards 
rose again in importance, and under the 
name of Xéva (Theophylact) again re- 
ceived the titles of evdaiuwy and peydAn 
(Nicetas, Chon. p. 203, ed. Bonn). It 
has been supposed to have occupied the 
site of the modern Chonas or Khonos, 
but of this there now seem conSiderable 
doubts; see Smith, Dict. Geogr. s. v., 
Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 
471 note, Pauly, Real-Encycl. Vol. 11. p. 
518, and the very interesting topograph- 


So too Meyer, who admits that 


ical notes of Steiger, Hinl. p. 1—33. 
&vtous| ‘suints ;’ used substantivally, as 
appy. in all the addresses of St. Paul’s 
Epp., Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 
1, Eph. i. 1, Phil. i. 1; so Copt., Atth. 
(Platt), and appy. Chrys. De W. and 
others connect a-ylois with adeA@. (so ap- 
parently Syriac, Vulg.), but with con- 
siderably less plausibility, as in such a 
case morois would far more naturally 
precede than follow, the more compre- 
hensive aylos. On the meaning of dyios — 
in such addresses, see Davenant zn loc., 
Beveridge, Serm. 11. Vol. vr. p. 401, and 
compare notes on Eph. i. 1. 

migtots &SeAHots Kk. T.A.] ‘ faith- 
ful brethren in Christ ;? more specific, 
and slightly explanatory, designation of 
the preceding Gyo. "Ev Xpiorg@ is in 
close union with a5eAgo/, and marks the 
sphere and element in which the broth- 
erhood existed. The omission of the 
article is perfectly admissible, év Xp. be- 
ing associated with adeAgois so as to ; 
form, as it were, one composite idea ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 20.2, p. 123, and notes 
on Eph. i. 15. The insertion of the ar- 
ticle would throw a greater emphasis on 
ev Xp., ‘ iisque in Christo,’ than is neces- 
sary or intended; see notes on 1 Tim. 
iii. 14, Gal. iii. 26. Lachm. adds Incov 
with AD'E'FG ; 3 mss.; Syriac, Copt, 


Crap, I. 3: 


We thank God for your 
faith, and love, and progress 


COLOSSIANS. 


123 


3 Evyapictoipev TO Ocw watpi tov Kupiov 


in the gospel as preached query Inoobd Xpiotov, wdvtote wept buav mpoc- 


to you by Epaphras. 


(not Z&th.), al., but, considering the prob- 
ability of insertion, not on sufficient au- 
thority. It may be observed that 
here, Rom. i. 7, Eph. i. 1, and Phil. i. 1, 
the apostle does not write especially to 
the Church (1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Gal. 
i. 2 (plural), 1 Thess. i. 1, and 2 Thess. 
i. 1), but to the Christians collectively. 
This is perhaps not intentionally signifi- 
cant; at any rate it cam hardly be con- 
ceived that he only uses the title éxxAn- 
ala to those churches which he had him- 
self founded : see Meyer in loc. 

xdpis «.7.A.] On this blended form 
of the modes of Occidental and Oriental 
salutation, see notes on Gal. i. 3, Eph. i. 
2. The term xdpis is elaborately ex- 
plained by Davenant; it seems enough 
to say with Waterland Euchar. x., that 
xdpis ‘in the general signifies ‘ favor,’ 
‘mercy,’ ‘ indulgence,’ ‘ bounty ;” in 
particular it signifies a gift, and more 
especially a ‘spiritual gift,’ and in a 
sense yet more restrained, the gift of 
sanctification, or of such spiritual aids as 
may enable a man both to will and do 
according to what God has commanded,’ 
Works, Vol. 1v. p. 666. 

matpos mar] The addition kal Kup. 
*1.X. adopted by Rec. with ACFG; mss. ; 
Vulg. (ed.), Syr.-Phil., —but with as- 
terisk, Boern., al. ; Gr. Ff, appears right- 
ly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most 
modern editors. 

3. edbxaptototmev|] ‘we give 
thanks ;? i.e. I and Timothy. In this 
Ep., as in 2 Cor., the singular and plu- 
ral are both used (see ch. i. 23, 24, 28, 29; 
ii. 1; iv. 2,3, 4, 13), and sometimes, as 
in ch. i. 25, 28, iv. 3, 4, even in juxtaposi- 
tion : in all cases the context seems fully 
to account for and justify the appropri- 
ateness of the selection ; see Meyer on 2 
Cor. i.4. It is doubtful whether rdyrore 
is to be joined (a) with the finite verb 


(1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 83, comp. Eph. i. 
16), or (b) with the participle (compare 
Rom. i. 10, Phil. i. 4): Syr., 4th., and 
the majority of modern commentators 
adopt the former; the Greek expositors 
and apparently Copt. and Vulg. the lat- 
ter. As mep) budy would seem a very 
feeble commencement to the participial 
clause, (b) is to be preferred : see Alf. in 
loc., who has well defended this latter 
construction. On evxapioreiv, sce notes 
on ch. i. 12, and on Phil. i. 3. 
The reading is very doubtful. Rec. in- 
serts kal before warp{, with AC?D°EKL ; 
al.: Lachmann inserts 76 with D!FG; 
Chrys. : Tisch. adopts simply warpi with 
BC!. As the probability of an insertion, 
especially of the familiar caf (Eph. i. 3, 
al.), seems very great, we retain, though 
not with perfect confidence, the reading 
of Tisch. The anarthrous use of rarhp 
is fully admissible ; see the list in Winer, 
Gr. §.19. 1, p. 109 sq. 
wepl buav mpoa.| ‘ praying for you.’ 
The uncial authorities are here again 
nearly equally divided between rep} [AC 
D®E*KL] and irép [BDIEIFG]: the 
former is adopted by Tisch. and most 
modern editors, and on critical grounds 
is to be preferred, though grammatically 
considered the difference is extremely 
slight, if indeed appreciable, compare 
Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 25 sq. .The ut- 
most perhaps that can be said is that imép 
seems to direct the attention more to the 
action itself, rep! more to the object or 
circumstances towards which it is direct- 
ed, or from which it may be supposed to 
emanate : see notes on Gal.i.4. On the 
primary meaning and etymolog. affinities 
of wep, see Donalds. Cratyl. § 177, 178. 
4. akovaarvres] ‘having heard, i.e. 


Syriac — 
se [a quo audivimus], Aithiop. 


‘after having heard, 
Le vy 


124 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 4, 5. 


, rhe , \ ' eee x a <F a , 
EUXOMEVOL, QKOVOAVTES THY TTLOTLY UVLWV EV ploT@o NHOOU Ka 
\ b) fé A ” > , ‘ [Bae ) 5 p>) \ \ a ‘5. \ 

THV AYATHV HV EXETE ELS TAVTAS TOUS aYLOUS ta THY EATTLOG THV 


postquam ;’ temporal use of the partici- 
ple (Donalds. Gr. § 575), not causal, 
‘quoniam audivimus,’ Caly. It was not 
the hearing but the substance of what he 
heard that caused the apostle to give 
thanks. For examples of the union of 
two or more participles with a single 
finite verb, see Winer, Gram. § 45. 3, p. 
308. éy Xp. “Ina.| ‘in 
Christ Jesus,’ —in Him, as the sphere or 
substratum of the mioris, that in which 
the faith centres itself. ‘The omission of 
the article gives a more complete unity 
to the conception, ‘ Christ-centred faith,’ 
see notes on Lph. i. 15, and comp. Fritz. 
Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p. 195, note. 
as usual, has its subjective meaning ; 
not ‘externam fidei professionem,’ nor 
both this and ‘internam et sinceram in 
corde habitantem fidem’ (Davenant), 
but simply the latter ; compare notes on 
Gal. i. 23. hy @xere] 
Further statement of the direction and 
application of the &ydrn. The difference 
between this and ri cis (Rec.) is slight, 
but appreciable. The latter simply ap- 
pends a second moment of thought 
(‘amorem, eumque erga omnes sanctos ’), 
the former draws attention to it, and 
points to its persistence, hv émdenxvimevor 
Theodor. The reading of 
Rec. is, however, very feebly supported 
[D°E*KL ; al.] and rejected by all recent 
editors. 

5. 51a tHv €Amida is most natu- 
rally connected with the preceding rela- 
tive sentence, not with evxap., Davenant, 
Eadie; for, as Meyer justly remarks, 
this preliminary evxapiotia is always, in 
St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 
4, Eph. i. 15, Phil. i.5, 1 Thess. i..8, 2 
Thessalon. i. 3, 2 Tim. i. 5, Philem. 4), 
grounded on the subjective state of his 
converts, dxovoayres k. 7. A. The love 
they entertained .toward the Go: was 


Tliotts, 


diet éAour, 


evoked and conditioned by no thought 
of any earthly return (compare Calvin), 
but by their hope for their piodds in 
heaven ; ayararé no, Tovs ayious, ob 
did Te GvSpdmivov, GAAG Sid 7 eAmiCew 
Td méAAovTa ayasd, Theoph. ; so Chrys. 
and Theodoret. THY 
amokerméevnyv K.7.A.] ‘which is laid 
up for you in heaven,’ ‘ propter coelestem 
beatitudinem,’ Daven. This defining 
clause, as well as the following words, 
seem to show that the éAms must here 
be regarded, if not as purely objective, 
‘id quod speratur,’ Grot., yet certainly 
as under objective aspects (comp. Rom. 
viii. 24, éAmls BAewouevn, and perhaps 
Heb. vi. 18), scil. thw evrpemopévny 


‘tuiv tev ovpavav Bactrctav, Theod. ; 


compare notes on Eph. i.18. It is char- 
acterized as thy dao. kK. T. A. partly to 
mark its security (7d dopadts eeikev, 
Chrys.), partly its futurity (see notes on 
2 Tim. iv. 8),’—the amd denoting the 
setting apart, by itself, for future pur- 
poses or wants ; compare Joseph. Antiq. 
xv. 9.1, xapw@v boot améxewrTo Sedama- 
ynuevwv, Xen. Anab. 11. 8.5, af Bddavor 
Tov powlkwy Tots oikéTaus améxewTo, and 
examples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. u. p. 
320. mponkotvoate] ‘ye 
heard before:’ before when? Not before 
its fulfilment, ‘ respectu spei quae illis de 
re futura erat facta,’ Wolf, —which 
would leave the compound form very 
unmeaning ; nor yet specifically . before 
this Epistle was written, ‘ante quam 
scriberem,’ Beng., but simply and gen- 
erally, ‘ formerly,’ Steiger, Alf.,—i. e. 
not before any definite epoch (e. g. ‘ when 
you received this hope,’ Meyer, al.), but 
merely at some undefined period in the 
past, ‘prius [shorp] audistis,’ Coptic ; 
compare Herodot. v. 86, od tpoaxnkodas 
Toot ASnvatoit émumecciv, VIII. 79, mpo- 
axhkoe &tt; compare Plato, Legg. Vil. Px 


Cuapr. I. 5, 6. 


COLOSSIANS. 


125 


arroKeipevny tyiv év Tots ovpavots, vy mponkovaarTe ev TO NOY THs 
> / fal > / 6 nr , > id al \ Ni as 
adn Yeas Tov evayyedov, ° Tov TapovTos Els Luads KaY@s Kal év 


797 a. The verb is often found with a 
purely local sense; e.g. Xenoph. Mem. 
11. 4. 7, where see Kiihner. 

TG AdywH THS GANS] ‘the word of 
Truth ;’ not the gen. of quality (‘ veris- 
simum,’ Grot.), but the gen. of the sub- 
stance or content (Scheuerlein, Synt. § 12. 
1, p. 82), tis GAndelas specifying what 
was the substance and purport of its 
teaching ; see notes on Eph.i. 13. The 
genitive evayyeAlov is usually taken as 
the genitive of apposition to TG Adyw Tis 
dans. (De Wette, Olsh.) ; but it seems 
more simple to regard it as a defining 
genitive allied to the genitive possessivus 
(genitive continentis), which specifies, and, 
so to say, localizes the general notion of 
the governing substantive, — ‘ the truth 
which was preached in and was an- 
nounced in the-gospel ;’ compare notes 
on Eph. i. 13, and see examples in Wi- 
ner, Gr. 30. 2. In Gal. ii. 5, 14, the 
gen. evayy.'is somewhat different, as 
dAfSe1a stands prominent and separate, 
whereas here it is under the regimen of, 
and serves to characterize, a preceding 
substantive. 

6. rod mapdévTos eis bu] ‘which 
is present with you ;’ more exactly ‘ which 
came to and is present with you,’ the eds 
(not ev as in the next clause) conveying 
the idea of the gospel haying reached 
them (Jelf, Gr. § 625), while mapévzos 
implies that it abides there ; od mapeyér- 
eto, onal, Kal améorn, GAN? Euewe kad 
-€orw éxet, Chrys. For examples of this 
‘not very uncommon union of verbs of 
rest with eis or mpds ‘Acts xii. 20), see 
Winer, Gr. § 50. 4, pp. 368, 369. A 
‘somewhat extreme case occurs in Jer. 
xii. 7, Zopatev abrods eis Td ppéap. - 
Kadas kal K.7.A.] ‘even as it also is 
in the whole world ;’ nayraxod Kpare?, 
Chrys., — a very natural and intelligible 
hyperbole.;, compare Rom. i, 18, x. 18. 


It is obviously not necessary either to 
limit kécuos to the Roman empire (Mi- 
chael.), or to understand it with a literal 
exactness, which at this period could not 
be substantiated ; comp. Orig. in Mautth, 
Tract. xxv11I., and see Justiniani in loc, 
kal oti KkapTog. «.7.A.| ‘and is 
bearing fruit and increasing ;’ metaphor 
from trees or arborescent plants (Chrys., 
Just.; compare Meyer) depicting the 
inward and intensive, as well as outward 
and extensive progress of the gospel. It 
may be observed that the apostle does 
not merely append a parallel participle 
kal Kaptodopoupevov, but by a studied 
change to the finite verb (see on //ph. i. 
20, Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505) throws 
an emphasis on the fact of the xapmogo- 
pla, while by his use of the periphrastic 
present (not xKapmropope? ‘ fructificat,’ 
Vulg., but ‘est fructificans,? Clarom.) 
he gives further prominence to the idea 
of its present continuance and duration ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 311. The 
distinction between the two verbs has 
been differently explained : on the whole 
Greek commentators seem right in re- 
ferring kapro®. to the inner and personal, 
avé. to the outward and collective in- 
crease ; Kaptopopiay Tov evayy. KéKAnke 
Thy TioTW TOV aknkodTwy Kal thy érai- 
vounevnv woditelay: avénow 8 Tay ma- 
Tevdytay Td TARXOS, Theod.: compare 
Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 20. . The middle 
kaprop. is an Gm. Aecydu. in the N. T.; 
it may. perhaps be an instance of the 
‘dynamic’ middle (Donalds. Gr. § 432. 
2. bb, Kriiger, Sprachil. § 52. 8), and may 
mark some intensification of the active, 
‘fructus suos exserit ;’ compare évepyei- 
osat, Gal. v. 6, and notes in loc. The 
reading is somewhat doubtful : xa) adé., 
with ABCD'EIFGL, seems io rest on 
preponderant evidence, but the authori- 
ties for the omission [ABCD!E!; Copt., . 


126 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 6, 7, 


iY A , \ ” A ‘\ > J 
TavtTl TO KOoUw, Kal eoTwW KapTropopovpevoy Kat avEavdpevov 
Kasas Kal év tpiv, ad ts iuépas jKovcate Kal éméyvote THY 


VS. n lal > > if 
xapw tov’ Ocod év adndeia 


Sah.], or insertion [D?D®E2FGKL; 
Vulg., Claroman., Syr. (both), Ath.] of 
the first kai, owing to the great prepon- 
derance of the Vy. on the latter side, 
are nearly equally balanced. On the 
whole it seems more likely to have been 
omitted to modify the hyperbole than in- 
serted to preserve the balance of the sen- 
tence ; so Tisch., Mey., and De W. 

thy xdptiv Tod @eod] ‘the grace of 
God,’ i. e. as evinced and manifested in 
the gospel: ‘ amplificat hisce verbis efli- 
caciam evangelii...... evangelium vyo- 
luntatem Dei salvantem ostendit, et nobis 
gratiam in Christo offert,’ Daven. ; com- 
pare Tit. ii. 15. It is doubtful whether 
this accus. is to be connected (a) with 
both verbs (De Wette), or (6) only with 
éréyvwre (Mey.). The grammatical se- 
quence appears to suggest the former, 
and is apparently followed by Chrysost., 
Gua edetacde, dua eyywre Thy xdp. T. O., 
but the logical connection certainly the 
latter ; for if év aAn®. were joined with 
Heovoate, Kadws (scil. évy GAnd., see be- 
low) x. 7. A. in verse 7 would seem tau- 
tologous. On the whole it seems best 
to adopt (b); so Steiger, Mey., al. 

év &AnSetal ‘in truth;’ vt. e. in no 
Judaistic or Gnostic form of teaching ; 
év aAnd. being (as kadds, ver. 7, seems 
naturally to suggest) an adverbial defi- 
nition of the manner appended to the pre- 
ceding éréyvwre ; compare Matth. xxii. 
16, and see Winer, Gr. § 51.1, p. 377 
(comp. p. 124), Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8, 
p- 211. Alford objects to the adverbial 
solution, but adopts an interpretation, 
‘in its truth and with true knowledge,’ 
that does not appreciably differ from it. 
Both Chrys. and Theoph. (od év Adya, 
ovde év amdrn K.T. A.) appear to have 
given to évy more of an instrumental 
force: this is not grammatically neces- 


T kaS@s euasete aro Erappa 


sary, and has led to the doubtful para- 
phrase, rovtéor onuelois kad Epyous Tapa- 
ddéors, Theophyl. 

7. kadxads] ‘evenas;’ not causal ‘in- 
asmuch as’ (Eph. i. 4), but as usual, 
simply modal, referring to the preceding 
ev GAnvelg, and thus serving formally to 
ratify the preaching of Epaphras : as it 
was in truth that they had known the 
grace of God, so was it in truth that they 
had learnt it. On the later form kadds, 
see notes on Gal. iii. 6. The Rec. adds 
kal after kaS#s: the external authority, 
however, is weak [D*EKL], and the 
probability of a mechanical repetition of 
the preceding kaSas «at far from slight ; 
compare Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
172 note (Bohn). "Emagppa| 
A Colossian (ch. iv. 12) who appears 
from this verse to have been one of the 
first, if not the first, of the preachers of 
the gospel in Colosse: he is again men- 
tioned as being in prison with St. Paul 
at Rome, Philem. 23. Grotius and oth- 
ers conceive him to have been the Epaph- 
roditus mentioned in Philip. ii. 25; see 
Thornd. Right of Ch. ch. 111. 2, Vol. 1. 
p. 462 (A.-C. Libr.) : this supposition, 
however, has nothing in its favor except 
the possible identity of name; see Wi- 
ner, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 830, and notes on 
chy i925. The reading kadas Kar 
éuds. will not modify the apparent infer- 
ence that Epaphras was the first preacher 
at Colossx; this would have been the 
case if the order had been kadws kal amd 
°Em. eudd.: see Meyer in loc. contrasted 
with Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1838, p. 
185. For the arguments that the apos- 
tle himself was the founder of this 
Church, see Lardner, Credibil. x1v. Vol. 
II. p. 472 sq.; for replications and coun- 
ter-arguments, Davidson, Introd. Vol. 
Il. p. 402 sq. cuvdovAoul 


> 


Cuap. I. 8, 9. 


COLOSSIANS. 


127 


ar 3 6 y e n 4 > \ ig \ e a s 
TOU ayaTnTOD GvVOOVAOV HuaV, Os eoTLW TLoTOS UTép Kuov Sid- 


na xX lal 8 € N. ry / Cd r \ Ls! lal > / > 
Kovos Tov AploToOV, ° 0 Kal OnAWOAS UY THY LUV ayaTnY év 


IIvevpare. 


We unceasingly pray that 
ye may be fruitful in 
good works, and thankful 
for your salvation in Christ, 
-—who is the creator, ruler, 
and reconciler of all things. 


‘ fellow-servant,’ i. e. of our common mas- 
ter, Christ ; compare ch.iv. 7. This and 
the further specification in the pronomi- 
nal clause seem designed to confirm and 
enhance the authority of Epaphras, 7d 
akidmiotov évrciIev Seikvuct Tod av5pds, 
Theoph., compare Theod. 
bmép bua@v] ‘in your behalf, i. e. to 
advance your spiritual good, ‘ pro vestra 
salute,’ Daven., — not ‘in your place,’ a 
translation grammatically (Philem. 13, 
see notes on Gal. ii. 13), but not histori- 
cally permissible, as this would imply 
that Epaphr. had been sent to Rome to 
minister to the apostle (Menoch.),—a 
supposition which needs confirmation. 
The reading is slightly doubtful ; Lachm. 
adopts juév with ABD!1G; 8 mss.; Bo- 
_ern., in which ease ‘ vice Apostoli’ (Am- 
brosiast.) would be the natural transla- 
tion (opp. to Mey.): the external au- 
thority, however, [CD2EFKL; great 
majority of mss. ; and nearly all Vy.], 
and the arguments derived from errone- 
ous transcription (compare pref. to Gal. 
p- xvii, ed. 2) seem decidedly in favor of 
the reading of Rec., as rightly followed 
. by Tisch. (ed. 2, 7). 

8. 6 kat SnAdoas] ‘ who also made 
known ;’ further and accessory statement 
of the acts of Epaphr. ‘Hui, as before, 
refers to the apostle and Timothy; see 
notes on ver. 8. ayamny 
év Ivetmarti] ‘love in the Spirit;’ 
not merely love towards the apostle 
(Theoph., Gicum., and appy. Chrys.), 
but ‘brotherly love’ in its most general 
meaning, in which that towards St. Paul 
was necessarily included; ‘erga me et 


9 \ n Ne a 243 @ ey 2 > , 
Aia Tovto Kai jets, ab As tuépas HKov- 
CAMEV, OV TAaVOMESA UTEP YUaY Tpocevyopevor 
¥ > rs es fol \ 3 / 
Kab attovpevor wa TANPwWSATE Tiv émiyvwow 


omnes Christianos,’ Corn. a Lap. This 
love is characterized as in ‘ the (Holy) 
Spirit’ (compare Rom. xiv. 17, xapa év 
Ty. ayiw) ; it was from Him that it arose 
(compare Rom. xv. 30, ay. rod Myv.), and 
it was only in the sphere of His blessed 
influence (surely not éy instrumental, ‘a 
Sp. div. excitatum,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 
Ill. p. 203) that it was genuine and op- 
erative ; af ye GAAat bvoua aydans @xover 
uévov, Chrys. Gicumenius suggests the 
the right antithesis (od capxikhy, ZAAG 
mvevpatixny), but dilutes the force by the 
adjectival solution: the omission of the 
article before év Tv. is perfectly in ac- 
cordance with N. Test. usage, and pre- 
serves more complete unity of concep- 
tion ; see Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 123. 
On the term dydin, see Reuss, Theil. 
Chrét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p. 203 sq. 

9. 5t& todto] ‘On this account ;’ 
“because, as we hear, ye have such faith, 
and have displayed such love :’ 
ev Tois &y@ow ékelvous mddiora, dievyetpo- 


Kaddmep 


fev Tous eyyls BvTas Tis vixns: oTw 3) 
kal 6 TatAos tovtous wdAicTa mapaKadre? 
Tovs TO TA€ov KaTwpdIwKdtas Chrys. ; see 
esp. Eph.i.15. Thus the ‘ causa impul- 
siva’ (Daven.) of the apostle’s prayer is 
this Christian progress on the part of his 
converts ; the mode of it is warmly ex- 
pressed by the intensive od matoua 
k.7.A.; the subject (blended with the 
purpose of it) by tva tAnpwdire Kk. T. A. 

kat Hmets| ‘we also,” ‘Timothy and 
I on our parts ;’ gentle contrast between 
the Colossians and their practical dis- 
play of vital religion, and the reciprocal 
prayer of the apostle and his helper. 


128 


a / 3 Clete , 
Tov YeAnuwatos avTov ev Tracy 


Ka} has here its slightly contrasting force, 
and is clearly to be joined with jets, 
not roiro, as De W.; see noteson Phil. 
ave l2: ag is Nuépas 
k. T.A.] ‘from the day that we heard ;’ 
incidental definition of the time, with 
reference to axovcayTes, ver. 4, not ap’ 
fis tu. nkovoare, ver. 6 (Huth.), which 
may be echoed in the present clause, but, 
from the difference of the subjects of the 
axovew, is not directly referred to. 

ob mavépeda x. T.A.] See. the ex- 
actly similar affectionate hyperbole in 
Eph. i. 16: ob play Hucpay bmepevxducda, 
ovde Svo, ov tpets, Chrys. On this idio- 
matic use of the part., which as usual 
points to a state supposed to be already 
in existence, see notes and reff. on Eph. 
i. 16, and for a general investigation of 


the union of the participle with the finite ’ 


verb, see the good ‘treatise of Weller, 
Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. p..11 sq. 

kat aitovmevor| ‘and making our pe- 
tition ;’ the more special form of the 
\ more general mpooevx., see Mark xi. 24, 
Eph. vi. 18, and notes in loc. The pres- 
ent passage seems to confirm the view, 
expressed Eph. /. c., and on 1 Tim. ii. 1, 
that rpocevx} (and mpocedxouat) is not 
merely for good things (comp. Andrewes, 
Serm. Vol. v. p. 858, A.-C. Libr.), but 
denotes prayer in its most general as- 
pects. On the exact force of tva, which 
has here its secondary telic force, and in 
which the subject of the prayer is blend- 
ed with the purpose of making it, see 
notes on Eph. i. 16. Meyer, as usual, 
too strongly presses the latter idea. 

thy emlyvwotv k.T.A.] ‘the (full) 
knowledge of His will,’ —of God’s will, 


the subject of abrod sufficiently transpir- . 


ing in mpocevx. k. TA. The accusative 
érlyv. is that of the remoter, or, as it 
is sometimes termed, the ‘ quantitative’ 
object in which the action of the verb 
has its realization, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 9. 


t ‘ 
copia Kal cuvécet TvEUpAaTLK, 


5, p- 205, and notes on Phil. i. 11, where 
this construction is discussed. On the 
meaning of émi-yywouw, not barely ‘ Kennt- 
niss’ (compare Riick. on Rom. i. 28, 
Olsh. on Eph. i. 17), but ‘ Erkenntniss,’ 
‘perfecta cognitio,’ Daven., see notes on 
Eph. i.17. The remark of Alf. on ver. 
6 is apparently just, that the force of the 
compound can hardly be expressed in 
English, but the distinction between yvé- 
ots and érlyvwous (opp. to Riick. on Rom. 
i. 28, Olsh. on Eph. i. 8) seems no less 
certain. The former, as De W. rightly 
suggests, points to a mere unpractical 
and theoretical, the latter to a full and 
living, knowledge ; see Wordsworth in — 
loc. SeAnpwatos| Obvi- 
ously not with any special reference, dia 
ti Tov Tidy éreuer, but simply and gen- 
erally, His will,— not only in reference 
to ‘ credenda,’ but also and perhaps more 
particularly (Theod.) to ‘agenda ;” com- 
pare ver. 10, and see Davenant in loc. 

év wdaon «.7.A.] ‘in all spiritual wis- 
dom and understanding,’ or perhaps more 
exactly, though less literally, ‘in all wis- 
dom and understanding of the Spirit,’ 
mvevu. referring to the Holy Spirit,’ 
(th.-Pol.), the true source of the copia 
and gvvecis, see notes on Ephes.i. 3; 
compare Romans i. 11, 1 Cor. ii. 18, al. 
Thus then *don (so expressly Syr., Ath.» 
(Platt), Copt.) and mvevuarin@ (opp. to 
Alf. ; compare Chrys.) refer to both sub- | 
stantives, the extensive mdcy referring to! 
every exhibition or manifestation of the 
gop. kal atv. (see notes on Eph. i. 8), 
while mvevuarixy points to the character- 
istics and origin of both. The clause is 
not purely instrumental, but represents 
the mode in which, or the concomitant 
influences under which, the Anpwdfva 
Thy ertyv, was to take place : this cola kt. | 
aby. was not to be avdpwmivn (1 Cor. ii. 
13) or capeexh (2 Cor. i. 12), but mvev-— 
patixh, — inspired by and sent from the | 


| 
| 
| 
: 


Cnap. I.-10. COLOSSIANS. 


129 
10 A Ief = la) K / ? A 3 la > \ 
mTepitatncat aEiws tod Kupiov eis macav apéoxeay, év Travth 
‘hppa til ’ 
épyo ayas@ Kaprropopodvtes Kai avfavouevor TH emiyvwser Tod 


10. mepirarjaa] So Lachm. with ABCDIFG; 10 mss.; Clem. (Griesb., Scholz, 
Meyer, al.). Tisch. (ed. 2,7) following Rec. adds suas with D?9EKL; great ma- 
jority of mss.; Chrys., Theod., Dam. The addition is deficient in uncial authority, 
and somewhat opposed to grammatical usage; compare Winer, Gram. § 44. 3, p. 
287 sq. 

Th éemvyvéce| So Lachmann with ABCD!E!FG; nearly 10 mss.; Amit. Tol. ; 
Clem., Syr., Max. (Griesb., Scholz, De W., Alf.). On the contrary, Tisch. (ed. 2, 
7) reads eis tHv eriyywow with D®E2KL; very great majority of mss.; Theod., 
Dam., Theoph. {Rec., Meyer, Bisp.): lastly, év 7% émvyv. is found in about 4 mss., 
nearly all the Vv., and Chrys. On reviewing this evidence, the uncial authority is 
indisputably in favor of the text; the Vy., on the other hand, might seem to be in 
favor of the insertion of a preposition. As, however, the Vv. may nearly as prob- 
ably have inserted the prep. to explain the ill-understood instrumental dat. r@ émvyr. 
as the equally misunderstood eis émiyywow, and as internal considerations seem 


rather in favor of the simple dat., we return to the reading of Tisch. (ed. 1). 


Holy Spirit; compare Ephes. i. 3, and 
notes, where however the instrum. force 
is more distinct. With regard to cota 
and ovveows, both appear to have a prac- 
tical reference (see esp. Daven.); the 
former is, however, a general term, the 
latter (the opposite of which is &yvoia, 
Plato, Rep. 111. p. 376 B) its more special 
result and application; see Harless on 
Eph. i. 8, and compare Beck, Seelent. 
11.19, p. 60. Between ody. and ¢ppdyvn- 
ots (Luke i. 17, Eph. i. 8) the difference 
is very slight; ovveors is perhaps seen 
more in practically embracing a truth 
(Ephes. iii. 4), ppév. more in bringing 
the mind to bear upon it; compare notes 
on Eph. i. 8, and Beck, l. c., p. 61. 

10. reptmatjoat x.T.a.|] ‘that 
ye walk worthily of the Lord ;’ purpose 
and object (iva, ‘Theod., compare The- 
ophyl.), not result (Steiger, al.) of the 
TAnpwsijvat, specified by the ‘ infin. epex- 
egeticus ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 44. 1, p. 
284, Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. p. 365. For 
examples of ééws with the genitive, see 
Eph.’ iv. 1, Phil. i. 27, 1 Thess. di. 12; 
and the examples collected by Raphel, 
Annot. Vol. 11. p. 527. Lastly, Kuptov 
is not = cod (Theod.), but, as appar- 


ently always in St. Paul’s Epistles, refers 
to our Lord ; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, p. 
113. In the Gospels, 2 Pet., and James, 
it commonly refers to God, but in 1 Pet. 
li. 13 (the other examples are quotations) 
to Christ. eis Tacayr 
apéar.]| ‘unto all (every form of ) pleas- 
ing,’ ‘in omne quod placet,’ Claroman., 
2. e. ‘to please Him in all things,’ tva 
oltw Cite dore dia mdvtTwy apéonew 73 
cg [Kupiy], Theoph. On this use of 
apéorera, ‘studium placendi,’ Beng. (an 
dm. Aeydu. in the N. T.), see Loesner, 
Obs. p. 861, where there will be found 
several illustrative examples from Philo, 
the most pertinent of which are, de Mund. 
Opif. § 30, Vol. 1. p. 35 (ed. Mang.), 
mdvra Kal Aéye kad mpdrrew eomovdacerv 
eis GpéoKetay Tod maTpos Kal Baoidéws, 
and de Sacrif. § 8, Vol. 11. p. 257, dia 
macay iéva: Tay eis dpeoketay ddav. On 
the extensive mas, see above, and on 
Eph. i. 8. 
Epyw ay.] ‘in every good work ;’ sphere 
in which the kapmogopia is manifested. 
This clause is not to be connected with 
the preceding «is dpeocnemy, as Syriac 
(Pesh.),; Chrys., Theoph., but with the 
following kapmropop., as Vulg., Gothic, 


éy wavTk 


17 


130 


COLOSSIANS. 


Crap Ad. 


Ocod, © év radon Suvdper Svvapovpevor Kata TO KpaTos Ths SoEns 


Syr. (Philox.), Theod., and the majority 
of modern commentators. The construc- 
tion is thus perfectly symmetrical, each 
participle being associated with a modal 
or instrumental predication. The parti- 
ciples, it need scarcely be said, do not 
belong to mAnp. (Beng.), —a construc- 
tion which Schwartz quaintly terms a 
‘carnificinam,’ but with the infin., the 
participle having relapsed into the nom. ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p, 505, and notes 
on Eph. iii. 18, iv. 2. 

kalavéi. TH Emiyvdcer| ‘and in- 
creasing by the ( full) knowledge of God.’ 
The éxtyvwois Ocod was the instrument 
by which the growth was increased. The 
reading of Fec., eis thy emiyv., is not ex- 
egetically untenable, as émiyvy. may be 
viewed with a kind of reciprocal refer- 
ence as the measure of the moral avénois 
(see Mey. in loc., and comp. Ephes. iv. 
15), but the weight of external evidence, 
if not also of internal, preponderates 
against it ; see critical note. 

ll. €v don x.7.A.] ‘being strength- 
ened with all (every form of ) strength ;’ 
third participial clause parallel to, and 
in co-ordination with, év maytl «. 7. A. 
*Ev here seems purely zzstrumental (con- 
trast ver. 9), the action being considered 
as involved in the means; see Jelf, Gr. 
§ 623. 3: with this may be compared 
the simple dat. Eph. iii. 16, see notes-in 
loc. Alford regards éy as denoting the 
clement, Sivas being subjective : this is 
possible ; the instrumental force, how- 
eyer, seems clearly recognized by Theod., 
7H Sela porn Kparvyduevor, and appears 
more simple and natural. The simple 
form dvvaudw is an am. Aeydu. in the 
N. T. (see Psalm Ixvii. 28, Eccles. x. 
10, Dan, ix. 27), évduvauéw being the 
more usual form. Kata 
Td Kpadtos THs 8.] ‘according to the 
power of His glory;’ not His glorious 
power,’ Auth., Beza, al., but ‘the power 


which is the peculiar characteristic of 
His glory,’ the gen. belonging to the cat- 
egory of the gen. possessivus ; compare 
notes on Hph. i. 6. The prep. kara rep- 
resents, not the source (Daven.), nor the 
motive (Steig.), but, as usual, the norma, 
in accordance with which, and in corres- 
pondence with which, the dvvduwous 
would be effected. The power which is 
the attribute of the glory of God indi- 
cates the measure and degree in which 
the Colossians will be strengthened ; obx 
amTAas, pyal, Suvamotase, GAA’ as eixds 
Tovs oUTwS ioxupy SeamwdTn SovAcvovTas, 
Chrysost. On the deriv. of kpdros, see 
notes on Eph. i. 19. 

eis maocav x.7.A.] ‘unto all patience 
and longsuffering ;? i.e. ‘to insure, to 
lead you into, every form of patience and 
longsuffering,’ ‘ ut procreet in nobis [yvo- 
bis] patientiam,’ etc., Dayvenant, — the 
prep., as usual, marking the final desti- 
nation of the duyduwois. The distinction 
between these words is not very clear: 
neither that of Chrys. (uaxpoSuuia mpds 
GAAHAous, UTowovh mpds Tovs ew), nor 
that quoted, but not adopted by Dayen. 
(drou. ad illa mala que a Deo infligun- 
tur paxpos. ad illa que ab hominibus- 
inferuntur) is quite satisfactory, as both, 
on different sides, seem too restrictive. 
Perhaps trouovy is more general, desig- 
nating that ‘ brave patience,’—not ‘ endur- 
ance,’ with which the Christiantought to 
bear all trials, whether from God or men, 
from within or without (sce notes on 2 
Tim. ii. 10, and on Tit. ii. 2), while war- 
pos. points more to forbearance, whether 
towards the sinner (see on Eph. iv. 2), 
the gainsayer, or even the persecutor : 
see on 2 Tim. iii. 10. meta 
Xapasis joined by Theodoret, Olsh., 
De W., Alf., and others, with the pre- 
ceding clause ; so appy. Vulg., Coptic, 
Goth., Syriac (Philox.), and /®thiop. 
Viewed alone, this connection seems 


a: 


Crkp.- I. 12. 


COLOSSIANS. 


131 


‘auTov els TacaV UTOMOVIY Kal waKkpoSumiay, peta yapas ™ evya- 


a a fol e an a 
uwctouvtes To LIlatpl TO ikav@cavTs Huds els TIV pEeplda TOU 
t c 


very plausible,—the trou. and paxp. 
are to be associated with joy, the resig- 
nation is to be genuinely Christian, com- 
pare Daven. As, however, each preced- 
ing clause commences with a defining 
prepositional adjunct, and both brouovy 
and wakpos. are perfectly distinct and are 
commonly used, whether in juxtaposi- 
tion (2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10) or 
separately (Rom. v. 3, 2 Cor. xii. 12, al. ; 
Gal. v. 22, Col. iii. 12, al.), without any 
further definition, it seems more natural, 
with Syr., Chrys., Theoph., Gicumen., 
and recently Mey., Zachm., and Tisch., 
to connect the defining words with evxa- 
plorourTes. 

12. evx. TG Marpt] ‘giving thanks 
to the Father,’ scil. ‘of our Lord Jesus 
Christ ;’ participial clause, obviously 
not dependent on ov mavdu. verse 9 
(Chrys., Theoph.), but co-ordinate with 
the preceding clauses. The meaning of 
evxap.is well discussed by Boeckh, Corp. 
Inscr, Vol. 1. p. 521; it is there stated 
to have four meanings : (a) Attic, ‘ grat- 
Vicari,’ xdpw diddvar; (b) non-Attic, ‘ gra- 
tias habere uel referre ; but see Demosth. de 
Cor. p. 257. 2; (¢) gratias agere verbis,’ 
used by Polyb. (xvi. 25. 1, xviii. 26. 4, 
XXX. 11.1) and later writers ; (d) ‘yratias 
referre simul et agere gratificando,’ found in 
certain inscript.: see also notes on Phil. 
i.12. The readings r@ 7. kad @eG and 
7@ @cG x. w. are obvious interpolations, 
and rest on no critical authority ; see 
Tisch. in loc. TG. ikave- 
gavrTt Kk. 7.2] ‘who made us meet for 
the portion of the inheritance of the saints 
in light.’ These words deserve some con- 
sideration. In the first place the reading 
is slightly doubtful: DIFG; 17. 80; 
Claroman., Goth.; Did.; Lat. Ff. read 
Kahéoaytt for fav., while Lachm., with 
B, retains both t@ ixav. kad kad. The 
critical preponderance is, however, clear- 


ly in favor of ikay., for which kadéo. 
would have formed a natural gloss. (2) 
‘Txay. is not ‘ qui dignos fecit, ’Vulg., but 
y y ; 
us|? [qui idoneos nos fecit] Syriac, 
compare /Eth.; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, Os Kad 
ixdvwoev judas, where the meaning is 
perfectly clear. Again the part. has not 
here a causal force ‘ quippe qui,’ Meyer 
\ (compare Theod., drt kowwvods arepnve), 
—a meaning which is precluded by the 
presence of the article (see notes on Eph. 
i. 12), but is distinctly predicative, and 
somewhat solemnly descriptive ; moAb 7d 
Bdpos @ekev, Chrys. The principal 
difficulty is, however, in the construction, 
as év 76 dwTi may admit of at least four 
connections, (a) with ixayécaytt, in an 
instrumental (Meyer) or semi-modal 
sense, —as apparently Chrys., Gicum., 
Theoph., who explain pwr! as = yrdoe ; 
(b) with thy pepida (Beng.), ev having a 
local force, and defining the position of 
the pepis ; (c) with aylwv, — év dwt) des- 
ignating their abode ; compare Grotius ; 
lastly and most probably, (d) with «aq- 
pov, or more exactly KAjpouv Tay ayiwv, 
the gen. specifying the possessors, and 
so indirectly the character of the KAjpos, 
the prep. clause its ‘situm et conditio- 
nem,’ Corn.a Lap. Of these (a), though 
ably defended by Meyer, is harsh and 
improbable; (6) causes a dislocation in 
the order, unless sep. «. 7. A. be all taken 
as one idea (Alford), in which case the 
omission of the article is not perfectly 
satisfactory ; (c) gives to of &yior an un- 
due prominence, compare Alford ; (d) on 
the contrary seems to give to the xAjpos 
Tay ay. exactly the qualifying. or possi- 
bly localizing definition it requires, and 
preserves a good antithesis with é. tod 
oxérous, v. 13, which (a) especially ob- 
scures ; compare Acts xxvi. 18. The 
art. before év 7@ pwr) is not needed, as 


132 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap.. I. 13. 


KAnpov TOV Gyiov ev TO Hwtl, ® ds éppvcato judas ex THs eLouclas 
TOU GKOTOUS, Kai mETETTHGED Eis THY Bacirelay TOD Viod THs aya- 


KAnp. Tov wy. év Ta >. forms asingle idea 
(Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 123) : with the 
whole clause (Alf.) it could be less easily 
Wispensed with. Weretain then (d) with 
De W.., perhaps Theod., and apparently 
the majority of interpreters. There re- 
main only a few details. 
kARpos| ‘inheritance,’ Acts xxvi. 18; 
properly ‘a lot’ (Matth. xxvii. 35, Mark 
xv. 24), thence anything obtained by lot 
(compare Acts i, 25, Hec.), and thence, 
with a greater latitude, anything as- 
signed or apportioned (tém0s, KTfjua, od- 
aia 7) Aaxpds, Suid.), whether officially 
(1 Pet. v.3; ‘cleros appellat particulares 
ecclesias, Caly.), or, as here, a posses- 
sion and inheritance; comp. Heb. mdm. 
The «Ajjpos ev >. is represented as a joint 
inheritance of the saints, of which each 
individual has his pepiéa. The deriva- 
tion is uncertain; perhaps from kAdew, 
i. e. a ‘ broken-off’ portion (Pott, Htym. 
Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 597), or, less probably, 
from Sanscr. kri, with sense of ‘ casting,’ 
or ‘ parting off’ (Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 
11. p. 172). Its more specific use in 
eccl. writers is well illustrated by Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 110 sq. 
éy TG dw] It is not necessary to 
refer this specifically to the heavenly 
realm: ¢@s marks its characteristics on 
the side, not merely of its glory (Huth., 
compare Bp. Hall, Znvis. World, 11. 5) 
but, as the antithesis suggests, of its es- 
sential purity and perfections ; compare 
1 John i.5 This blessed inheritance 
may be entered upon in part even here on 
earth. For a good sermon on this text, 
see Beveridge, Serm. 11. Vol. vr. p. 399. 
13. ds €ppiaaro k.7.A.| Apposi- 
tional relative-sentence (Winer, Gram. 
§ 60. 7, p. 479), introducing a contrasted 
amplification of the preceding clause, 
and preparing for a transition to the 
doctrine of the person, the glory, and 


the redeeming love of Christ, ver. 14 
20. The special meanings that have 
been assigned to épptoaro (‘eripuit ; plus 
hoc est quam liberavit: .....eripiuntur 
sepe inviti,’ Zanch.), though in part phi- 
lologically defensible (see Buttm. Lezil. 
8. Vv. § 53. 1, 2), cannot be certainly maia- 
tained in the N. T., where for the most 
part the idea of ‘dragging from a crowd 
of enemies’ (comp. Luke i. 74, 2 Tim. 
iii. 11, iv. 17;—surely not unwilling) 
passes into the more generic idea of ‘ sav- 
ing ;” see Buttm. /.c.,§ 3. The remark 
of Theoph. is much more in point; ov« 
elme Se, e&éBarev, GAN’ Eppioaro, Seikvds 
Ort Os aixuddAwror éradamwpovueda. 
éEovclas tot oxkdt.| ‘the power of 
darkness ;’ the power which is possessed 
and exerted by Darkness, —not, how- 
ever, merely subjectively, tis mAdyns, 
Chrys. 1, but evil and sin, viewed objec- 
tively as the antithesis of dds, 7. e. Tod di- 
aBddov THs Tupayvidos, Chrys. 2, Theod. 
metéatnaev| ‘translated,’ ‘removed ;’ 
redemption in its further and positive 
aspects. The verb clearly involves a 
local reference, the removing from one 
place and fixing in another; we were 
taken out of the realms of darkness and 
transferred to the kingdom of light : see 
Joseph. Antig. 1x. 11. 1, robs. oixhropas 
petéoTngev ets Thy avToU BaciAelav. The 
further idea ‘ migrare cogit ex natali solo,” 
Daven., though theologically true, is not 
necessarily involved in the word. 

eis tHv BaotAetav| The term Bacr- 
Acia has here a reference neither purely 
metaphorical (e.g. the Church; comp. 
Huth.), nor ethical and inward (Olsh. ; 
Luke xvii. 21), nor yet ideal and prolep- 
tic (Mey.), — but, as the image involved 
in wetéor. suggests, semilocal and de- 
scriptive. Nor is this wholly future ; 
the viol rod @wréds, the pure and the holy 
(comp. Matth. v. 8, Heb. xii. 14), even 








Cuap. I. 14, 15. 


a 
@ 


c 


> a 14 > 
TNS AVTOV, ** EV 


COLOSSIANS. 


153 


y \ b s \ ” a e 
EXOMEV THY ATOAVTPWOLY, THY abEeoLY TOV apwap- 


fal 15 iva > > Ta! rn 6) A fal b} i / , 
TLOV’ OS EOTLY ELKWY TOU €OU TOU GOPaTou, TP@WTOTOKOS TTAGNS 


while tarrying in these lower courts are 
the subjects of that kingdom, the ‘ deni- 
zens’ of that moAirevya (Phil. iii. 20), 
the sharers of that vfodecta (Eph. i. 5), 
just as the viol rijs amemelas are even 
here on earth the occupants of the realm 
of darkness and the vassals of its koopo- 
xpdtopes. A long and elaborate treatise 
on the BamAcla @cod will be found in 
Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 107-173. 
THS aydmns avTod| ‘of Lis love,’ 
i. e. who is the object of it, whom it em- 
braces. This genitive has received dif- 
ferent explanations; it has been regard- 
ed as (a) a genitive of the characterizing 
quality (compare Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. 
b, p. 211), in which it differs little from 
ayarntdés, Matthew iii. 17, Mark xii. 6, 
al., or 7yamnuévos, Ephes. i. 6, compare 
Chrys.; (b) a species of gen. originis, 
aydan being considered more as an es- 
sence than an ‘attribute; see August. de 
Trin, x. 19 (cited by Est. and Just.), 
and Olsh. in doc. ; (c) the gen. of the re- 
moter object (comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, 
p- 169), ‘the son who has His love,’ 
Steiger, compare Wordsw. ; or, simply 
and more probably, (d) the gen. subjecti, 
aydrns being classed under the general 
head of the possessive genitive; comp. 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7.7: De Wette 
and Mey. compare Gen. xxxy. 18, vids 
6dtyns ov. It has been thought that 
the title is specially selected to imply 
some reference to the vioSecta (Huth.); 
this is possible, but the context and a 
comparison with Ephes. i. 6, 7, do not 
favor the supposition. 

14. év @] ‘in whom;’ certainly not 
‘by whom,’ but ‘zn’ Him as the living 


‘source of redemption : see notes on Hph. 


i. 7, where these and the following words 
in the clause are commented upon’ and 
illustrated. exomev thy 
&moA.] ‘we are having the redemption,’ 


not ‘our redemption,’ Alford, but ‘the 
red.,’ or with idiomatic omission of the 
art., ‘Redemption,’ Auth.,—the refer- 
ence being to the redemption from the 
wrath and punitive justice of God in its 
most comprehensive signification, wheth- 
er specially ours or common to us and 
to all mankind. The prep. amd is not 
intensive (ov« eire AUTpwoty, GAN GToA., 
ote pndé meceiy Aorrdy, Chrys.), but, 
with its usual force (‘ separationis remo- 
tionisque potestas,’ Winer, Verb. Comp. 
Iv. 5), points to the punishment and di- 
vine wrath from which we were redeemed 
in Christ and by His blood. On the 
four degrees of redemption, —viz., (a) 


payment of ransom for all, (b) admis- | 


sion into the Church, (c) exemption | 


from tyranny of sin here, and (d) ex- 
emption from hell and death here- 


after, —see Jackson, Creed, 1x. 5, Vol. ' 


Vill. p. 218 sq. (Oxf. 1844). For other 
details see notes on Eph. i. 7. There is 
some variation in reading; 8a Tod alu. 
(Rec.) rests only on cursive mss., and is 
rightly omitted by nearly all modern ed- 
itors. “Exouwey is more doubtful, as it 
might be a change in conformity with 
Eph. i.7. Lachm. reads éoxouev with B 
(A is doubtful), Copt. [an-si] ; but the 
diplomatic authority seems insufficient 
to warrant the change. THY 
&pecivy TOV amapt.| ‘the forgive- 
ness of our sins ;’ apposition to the pre- 
ceding thy amod., defining more exactly 
its nature and significance. On the dis- 
tinction between &peois and mapecis, see 
Trench, Synon, § 33, and on that between 
Gpapria and wapartépyara, notes on Eph. 
ee 

15. 6s éoriv x. 7.A.| Detailed de- 
scription of the person of Christ, His 
dignity, and His exaltation, for which 
the preceding verse and the allusion to 
BaotAcla in ver. 13 form a suitable prep- 


134 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 15, 16. 


i 16 og b] > rN ee) , \ , Ve) ‘A > rn } 
KTLOEWS, OTL EV aAvuT@ EKTLOSN Ta TTAVTA, TA EV TOLS ovpavols Ka 


aration. As this forms one of the three 
important passages in St. Paul’s Epistles 
(Ephesians i. 20-23, Phil. ii. 6-11) in 
which the doctrine of the person of Christ 
is especially unfolded, both the general 
divisions and the separate details will 
require very careful consideration. With 
regard to the former, it seems scarcely 
doubtful that there is a twofold division, 
and that, as in Phil. ii. 7, kal oxhware 
k. T. A. seemed to introduce a new por- 
tion of the subject, so here the second kab 
avros (v.18) indicates a similar transi- 
tion; and further, that, just as in Phil. 
1. c. the first portion related to the Adyos 
&oapros, the latter to the Adyos @vcapkos, 
so here in ver. 15-17, the reference is 
rather to the pre-incarnate Son in His re- 
lation to God and to His own creatures, 
in ver. 18-20 to the incarnate and now 
glorified Son in His relations to His 
Church: so Olsh., hastily condemned 
by Meyer, but, in effect and inferentially, 
supported by the principal Greek and 
majority of Latin Fathers: comp. Pear- 
son, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 14. See contra, 
Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 135, whose 
opposition, however, is based on the 
more than doubtful supposition that ca 
17) is dependent on the fore- 
“Os thus refers to the subject 
ay. avtod in its widest and 
most complex relations, whether as Cre- 
ator or Redeemer, the immediate context 
defining the precise nature of the refer- 
ence :-see on Phil. ii. 6. 

eixkay Tod Ocod 7. 7.A.] ‘the image 
of the invisible God ;’ not ‘an image,’ 
Wakef., or ‘image,’ Alf.,—the article 
is idiomatically omitted after éorw; sce 
Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3.2. With this. ex- 
pression comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, és éorw cixoy 
Tov Ocod, Heb. i. 3, amatyaoua tis ddEns 


avTos (ver. 
olen a 
going ot. 


6 vibs Tis 


Kal xapaxthp Tis bmootdcews avTov: 
Christ is the original image of God, 
‘bearing his figure and resemblance as 


truly, fully, and perfectly as a son of 
man has all the features, lineaments, and 
perfections belonging to the nature of 
mau,’ Waterl. Serm. Chr. Div. vy. Vol. 
II. p. 104, see especially Athan. Dicen. 
Def. § 20. Without overpassing 
the limits of this commentary, we may 
observe that Christian antiquity has ever 
regarded the expression ‘image of God’ 
as denoting the eternal Son’s perfect 
equality with the Father in respect of 
His substance, nature, and eternity ; 
‘perfectze equalitatis significantiam ha- 
bet similitudo,’ Hil. de Syn. § 73, ama- 
pdAAaktos eikay Tov Tatpds [on the sub- 
sequent Semi-arian use of this term, see 
Oxf. Libr. of Ff. Vol. vr11. p. 35, 106] 
kal ToD mpwrotimov exTumTos XapakTip, 
Alex. ap. Theod. Hist, Eccl. 1. 45 see 
Athan. contr. Arian. 1. 20. The Son is 
the Father’s image in all things save 
only in being the Father, cixay pvoumy 
kat GmapdAAaktos Kata mdvta duola TP 
matpl, mAhY Tis ayevynolas al THs TaTpé- 
tyros, Damasc. de Imag. 111. 18 ; comp. 
Athan. contr. Arian. 1. 21. 

The exact force of the emphatically 
placed rod aopdrouv (‘ who is invisible,’ 
Wordsw.; Winer, Gram. § 20. 1. a, p. 
120) is somewhat doubtful. Does it 
point to the primal invisibility (Chrys., 
Orig. ap. Athan. Nic. Def. § 27), or, by 
a tacit antithesis, to the viszbility, of the 
eixéy (Daven,, Meyer, al.; compare 2 
Cor. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 14) 4 Apparently 
to the latter: Christ, as God and as the 
original image of God, was of course 
primarily and essentially adéparos (émet 
ovd’ dy eixdyv etn, Chrys.) ; as, however, - 
the Son that declared the Father (John 
i. 18), as He that was pleased to reveal 
Himself visibly to the saints in the O. T. 
(see especially, Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. 1. 1. 
1 sq.). He was épazds, the manifester of 
Him who dwells in ¢@s ampdottov (1 
Tim. vi. 16) and whom no man hath 


Cuapr. I. 16. 


COLOSSIANS. 135 


A SN an fol A e \ \ Xx ba ” , ” 
Ta €Tl THS Ys, TA OpaTa Kal Ta aopata, elite Ypovot, Eire 


seen or can see; John i, 18; compare 
Beng. in loc. Whether there is here any 
approximation to views entertained by 
Philo (Olsh., Alf., see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 
2.4, p. 293), is very doubtful. We must 
at any rate remember that Philo was the 
uninspired exponent of the better theos- 
ophy of his day, St. Paul the inspired 
Apostle revealing the highest and most 
transcendent mysteries of the Divine 
economy. On the meaning of 
eixév, and its distinction from duoiwats, 
see Trench, Synon. § 15. 

mpwrotokos maans xKtlo.| ‘the 
Jirst-born before. every creature,’ 7. e. ‘be- 
gotten, and that antecedently to every- 
thing that was created ;’ surely not ‘ the 
whole creation,’ Waterland (Vol. 11. p. 
57), compare Alf.,—an inexact transla- 
tion which here certainly (contrast on 
Eph. ii. 21) there seems no necessity for 
maintaining; compare Middleton, Gr. 
Art. p. 373. As verse 17 (mpd mdyrwv) 
expressly reiterates, our Lord is here 
solemnly defined as apwtdérokos in rela- 
tion to every created thing, animate or 
inanimate, human or superhuman ; zpw- 
767. TOU Ocod. kal mpd TavTwY TOY KTIC- 
pdrwv, Just. Martyr, Dial. § 100. This 
notable expression has received every 
variety of explanation. Grammat. con- 
sidered, tis xticews may perhaps be the 
part, gen., the posses. gen. (Hof. Schrift. 
Vol. 1. 137), or, much more probably, 
the gen. of the point of view, ‘in reference 
to, ‘in_comparison to,’ (Scheuerl. Synt. 
§ 18. 1. p. 129), the latent comparative 
force involved in the rpéros rendering 
this last genitival relation still more in- 
telligible and perspicuous ; comp. Fritz. 
on Rom. x. 19, Vol. 11. p. 421. In the 
first two cases, taca xtiots must be con- 


sidered as equiv. to a plur. (—o ee) 


WAago [omnium creaturarum] Syr.), 
i. e. every form of creation (comp. Hof- 


mann, /.c.), the expression compared 
with mpwrétoxos tay vexpav, Rev. i. 5, 
and (esp. in the last of these cases) 
the Arian deduction, that Christ is a 
Ktlots, deemed grammatically possible ; 
see Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 2. 4, and even 
Reuss, Thél. Chrét. rv. 10, Vol. 11. p. 
100, both which writers use language, 
which, without the limitation named by 
Thorndike (Cov. Grace, 11. 17. 5), must 
be pronounced simply and plainly Arian. 
In the last case, raca «riots retains its 
proper force, mpwrdrokos its comparative 
reference, and the conclusion of Atha- 
nase, especially when viewed in connec- 
tion with the context (871 éy aiT@ exr., 
ver. 16), perfectly inevitable ; %AAos eave 
TOY KTIGMaTwY, Kal KTioMa pey ovK oT, 
KTioTys 8 Tay KTICMaTwY, contr. Arian. 
11. § 62, —a passave of marvellous force 
and perspicuity ; see also, both on this 
and ver. 16, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 
148. The term mpwrdrorKos (obs. not 
TpwrdkTioToS OF mporémdaaros) i is studi- 
ously used to define our Lord’s relation 
to His creatures and His brotherhood 
with them (comp. Rom. viii. 29), and is 
in this respect distinguished from povo- 
yevys which more exactly defines His 
relation to the Father; povoyevys pmev, 
dia Thy ex Tlatpbs yevynow: mpwrdtoKkos 
bé, dia thy cis tTHy KTlow ovyKatdBacw 
[condescension] kal thy Tay moAAGY adeA- 
gomoinow, Athan. contr. Arian. 11. 62: in 
a word, He was begotten, they were created, 
— the gulf infinite, yet as He stooped to 
wear their outward form, so He disdains 
not to institute, by the mouth of His 
apostle, temporal comparison between 
His own generation from eternity and 
their creation in time; see Bull, Defen. 
Frid. Nic. 111. 9. 9, who however appears 
to have misunderstood the meaning of 
ovykatdBacis, compare Newman, in Oxf, 
Libr. of Ef. Vol. v1rt. p. 288. 

Lastly, as there seem to be two senses in 


136 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuarv. I. 16. 


i ” > Ul ” 26, / . & of 5 , > Lal at 
KUPLOTNTES, ELTE APVAl, ELTE ECOVTLALY TH TAVTA Ol AVTOV KA 


Scripture in which our Lord is first-born 
in respect of every creature, viz., in its 
restoration after the fall as well as in its 
first origin (see Athan. J. c., § 63), we 
may possibly admit, as ver. 18 also par- 
tially suggests, a secondary and inferen- 
tial, — certainly not a primary (Theod.- 
Mops. ; /Eth., ‘supra omnia opera’), 
nor even co-ordinate, reference to prior- 
ity in dignity (mporiunots): see Alf. in 
loc., who, however, unduly presses this 
reference, and by referring the whole to 
Christ in his now glorified state (so 
Mey., and Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 
135), certainly seems to impair the the- 
ological force and significance of this 
august passage. For further doctrinal 
comments see the good note of Words- 
worth in loc. 

16. dru] ‘because,’ not ‘for,’ Alf., a 
translation better reserved for yap, — 
logical elucidation of the preceding mem- 
ber: He, in the sphere of whose crea- 
tive power all things were made and on 
whom all things depend, was truly the 
mpotoT. mé&ons Kticews, and had an eter- 
nal priority in time and dignity. The 
objections of Schleiermacher (Stud. uw. 
Krit. 1832, p. 502) to the logic of this 
causal explanation are unreasonable and 
pointless. év aut@| Sin 
Him,’ as the creative centre of all things, 
the causal element of their existence ; 
compare Winer, Gr. § 50. 6, p. 372 (ed. 
6; here judiciously altered). The prep- 
osition has received several different ex- 
planations, three of which deserve con- 
sideration : ev has been referred to Christ 
as (a) the causa instrumentalis (év = did), 
creation being conceived as existing in 
the means, Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3; (b) the 
causa exemplaris, the noopos vontds being 
supposed to be included and to have its 
essentiality (Olsh.) in Him as the great 
exemplar; (c) the causa conditionalis, the 
act of creation being supposed to rest in 


Him, and to depend on Him for its com- 
pletion and realization. Of there (a) is 
adopted by the Greek commentators, but 
is open to the serious objection that no 
distinction is preserved between ev a’rg@ 
here and & airod below, which St. 
Paul’s known use of prepositions (see 
notes on Gal. i. 1) would lead us certain- 
ly to expect. The second (+) is adopted 
by the schoolmen and recently by Olsh., 
Neander, Bisp., but is highly artificial, 
and supported by no analogy of Serip- 
ture. We therefore adopt (c) which is 
theologically exact and significant, and in 
which St. Paul’s peculiar, yet somewhat 
varied, use of év Xptor@ with verbs (com- 
pare 2 Cor. v. 19, Gal. ii. 17, Eph. i. 4, 
al.) is suitably maintained : compare the 
similar usage of éy, especially with pro- 
nouns, to denote the subject in which and 
on which (‘den Haltpunkt’) the action 
depends, e. 9. @y cot mao” &ywye ob omat, 
Soph. Ajar, 519; see Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s. v. év, 2. b, Vol. 1. p. 509, Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v. 8. b, p. 210. 

éxtladn] ‘were created, with simple 
physical ref. : observe the aorist of the 
past action, as contrasted with exrietaz 
below, in which the duration and persist- 
ence of the act (‘ per effectus suos durat,’ 
see on Eph. ii. 8) is brought into especial 
prominence ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27, and 
Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 243. The forced 
(ethical) meaning ‘were arranged, re- 
constituted’ (Schleierm.), though lexi- 
cally admissible, is fully disproved by 
Meyer, who observes that «ri¢w always 
in the N. T. (even in Eph. ii. 10, 15, iv. 
25) implies the bringing into existence, 
spiritually or otherwise, of what before 
was not. For an exposition of this im- 
portant text see Conc. Antioch. ap. Routh, 
Relig. Sacr. Vol. 11. p. 468, referred to 
by Wordsw. in loc. Ta wavTa| 
‘ all things (that exist)’ — more specifical- 
ly defined, first in regard of place, sec- 


Kf 





Crap. I. 16, 17. 


COLOSSIANS. 197 


> a alieee 17 CN tre ee \ , REUNS ¥ , 
‘ELS GUTOV EKTLOTAL, KQL QUTOS E€OTLW TpO TAVTWV, Kat TA TayTa 


ondly in regard of nature and essential 
characteristics. On the use of the art. 
(‘das All’), see W., Gr. § 18.8, p. 105. 
Ta év Tots ovp. K.T.A.| ‘the things 
in the heaven, and the things on the earth ;’ 
not in reference merely to intelligent be- 
ings (Huther), nor to the exclusion of 
things under the earth (Phil. ii. 10), but, 
as in Eph. i. 10 (see notes), with the ful- 
lest amplitude, —‘ all things and beings 
whatsoever and wheresoever; ‘hdc dis- 
tributione universam creaturam complec- 
titur,’ Daven. The following clauses 
carry out the universality of the refer- 
ence, by specifying the two classes of 
things, the visible and material, and the 
invisible and spiritual,—which latter 
class is still further specified by disjunc- 
tive enumerations. 

Ta Sparta kal rad &dp.| ‘the things 
visible and the things invisible ;’ amplifi- 
eation — not exclusively of the former 
(Siddorer capéorepoy tiva Karel ovpdvia 
etre dpara [as sun, moon, and stars] ezre 
adpara, Theod.), or exclusively of the 
latter member (adpata thy puxhv Aéyor, 
dpara& mdvtas avSpémovs, Chrys.), but of 
both, ‘the visible and invisible world :’ 
‘in ceelo visibilia sunt sol, luna, stelle ; 
invisibilia, angeli: in terra visibilia, 
plant, elementa, animalia; invisibilia, 
animee, humane,’ Daven.,— unless in- 
deed, as the following enumeration 
seems to imply, this last class, ‘ animz 
humane,’ be grouped with dpard (Mey.). 
etre Spdvor x.t.A.| ‘ whether thrones, 
whether dominions, whether principalities, 
‘whether powers ;’ disjunctive specification 
of the preceding dépara; ‘lest in that 
‘invisible world, among the many degrees 


of the celestial hierarchy, any order 


might seem exempted from an essential 
dependence upon Him, he nameth those 
which are of greatest eminence, and in 
them comprehendeth the rest,’ Pearson, 
Creed, Vol. 1. p. 148. There seems no 


reason to modify the opinion advanced 
on Eph. i. 21, that four orders of heay- 
enly intelligence are here enumerated ; 
see notes and references in loc., Reuss, 
Theol. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p- 226 sq., 
and the extremely good article in Suicer, 
Thesaur. 8.v. &yy. Vol. t p. 30-48. By 
comparing this passage with Eph. J. c., 
where the order seems descensive, we may 
possibly infer that the Spdéver (not else- 
where in N. T., but noticed in Dyonys. 
Areop. de Hier., and in Test. x11. Patr. 
p. 532, Fabric.) are the highest order of 
blessed spirits, those sitting round the 
eternal throne of God, xupidtyres the 
fourth, épxat and éfovcla: the intermedi- 
ate (Mey.), if indeed, as is observed on 
Lph.l.c., all such distinctions are not 
to be deemed precarious and presump- 
tuous; compare Bull, Serm. x11. p. 221, 
and Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 302. 
This enumeration may have been sug- 
gested by some known _ theosophistic 
speculations of the Colossians (chap. ii. 
18, compare Maurice, Unity of N. T. p. 
566), but more probably, as in Eph. i. 
21, was an incidental revelation, which 4 
the term aépara evoked. Of the other 2 
numerous interpretations which these ‘ 
words have received (see De Wette in ’ 
loc.), none seem worthy of serious atten- 
tion. Ta wayTa K.T.A.| 
‘ (yea) all thinys,’ etc.; solemn recapitu- 
lation of the foregoing. The most nat- 
ural punctuation seems to be neither a 
period (Zisch.), nor a comma (AIf.), 
least of all a parenthesis (Zacim.), but, 
as in Mill, and in Buttmann’s recent edi- 
tion, a colon. ? oP? avrod 
kat eis abtéy] ‘through Him and for 
Him ;’ xesumption of év adr@ éxr. with 
a change both in tense and prepositions ; 
there the Son was represented as the 
‘causa conditionalis ’ of all things, here 
as the ‘ causa medians’ of creation, and 
the ‘causa finalis’ (Dayen.) or ‘finis ulti- 


18 


138: 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 17,18. 


> >’ la) / 18 XN > , > e \ la] / 
év avT@ ouveotnker’ ® Kat avTos eat 7 Kear?) TOV TwHpLATOS, 


mus’ (Calov.) to which it is referred. 
It was to form a portion of His glory, 
and to be subjected to His dominion 
(comp. Matth. xxviii. 18) that all things 
were created; eis ai’roy xpéuara 4 mdv- 
TW VMOTTACIS......00TE VY ATOOTATSH THs 
avTod mpovolas, amdAwAe Kab SiepSaprat, 
Chrys. We may observe that the me- 
diate creation, and final destination, of 
the world, here referred to the Son, are 
in Rom. xi. 86 referred to the Father. 
Such permutations deserve our serious 
consideration ; if the Son had not been 
God, such an interchange of important 
relations would never have seemed pos- 
sible: compare Waterland Def. Qu. x1. 
Vol. 1. p. 383 sq., Vol. 11. p. 54, 56. 
On the force of the perf. @riora, see 
above; and in answer to the attempts to 
refer this passage to any figurative crea- 
tion, see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 149, 
150 (ed, Burt.). 

17. kal abrds xn. t.A.] ‘and He 
Himself,’ etc. ; contrast between the cre- 
ator and the things created ; adrds being 
emphatic, and kat having a gentle con- 
trasting force (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) 
by which the tacit antithesis involved in 
avtbs (‘ipse oppositum habet alium,’ 
Hermann, Dissert., arés 1) between the 
things created (7% mdyra) and Him who 
created them is still more enhanced : 
they were created in time, He their crea- 
tor is and was before all time. It may 
be observed that though airbs appears 
both in this and the great majority of 
passages in the N. T. to have its proper 
classical force (‘ut rem ab aliis rebus 
discernendam esse indicet,’ Herm. Dis- 
sert. 1.c.), the Aramaic use of the cor- 
responding pronoun should make us 
cautious in pressing it in every case. The 
vernacular tongue of the writers of the 
N. T. must have produced some effect 
on their diction.. mpd 
wdvtwyv)] ‘before all things,’ not ‘all 


beings’ (§ omnes,’ Vulg., Clarom.), and 
that too not in rank, but, in accordance 
with the primary meaning of mpwrdrokos 
and the immediate context,— in time; 
TovTo Oe Epuoov, Chrys. Theodoret 
with reason calls attention to the expres- 
sion—not éyévero mpd mavtwv, but gore 
aps mdytwv: contrast John i. 14 

év avT@ aovvéorT.] ‘consist in Him,’ as 
the causal sphere of their continuing ex- 
istence: not exactly identical with év abt@ 
above (Mey., Alf.), but, with the very 
slight change which the change of verb in- 
volves, in more of a causal ref-; Christ 
was the conditional element of their crea- 
tion, the causal element of theit persist- 
ence ; comp. Heb. i. 3, pépwy Te Ta ravTa, 
T@ piuatt Ths Surduews advtov. The de- 
claration, as Waterl. observes, is in fact 
tantamount to ‘in Him they live, and 
move, and have their being’ (Serm. on 
Div. vit. Vol. 11. p. 164), which is and 
forms one of the great arguments for the 
omnipresence and the preserving and 
sustaining power of Christ; see ib. Def 
Qu. xv111. Vol. 1. p. 430. The verb 
ovvictdvat is well defined by Reiske, Ind. 
Dem. (quoted by Meyer), as ‘corpus 
unum, integrum, perfectum, secum con- 
sentiens esse et permanere,’ compare 
2 Pet. iii. 5, and [Arist.] de Mundo, 6, 
ex Seod Ta mayrTa, Kal did Seod Huiv ov- 
véotnkev 3 see especially Krebs, Obs. p. 
334, and Loesner, Obs. p. 362, by both of 
whom this word is copiously illustrated 
from Josephus and Philo; compare also 
Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. 259. 

18. «kal adrds x.7.A.] Transition 
to the second part, in which the relation 
of the incarnate and glorified Son to His 
Church is declared and confirmed, not 
perhaps without some reference to the 
erroneous teaching and angel-worship 
that apparently prevailed in the Church 
of Colosse. Airds is thus, as before, 
emphatic, possibly involving an antithes 


Cuapr. I. 18. 


COLOSSIANS. 139 


THs éxKAnolas' bs eat apy}, TpwTdTOKOS eK THY vEexpav, wa 


sis to some falsely imagined kepada or 
kepadal of the Church ; ‘He in whom all 
things consist, He, and no other than He, 
is the head of the Church.’ The empha- 
sis, as Meyer observes, rests on repaai) 
rather than éxxcAynoia; it was the head- 
ship of the Church, not its imaginary 
constitution, that formed the undercur- 
rent of the erroneous teaching. 

TOD gpm. THS EKKA.] ‘of His body, 
the Church,’ rijs éxxa. being the genitive 
of identity or apposition ; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 59. 8, p. 470, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, 
p- 82. The apostle does not say merely 
‘of the Church,’ but ‘ of His body,’ etc., 
to show, — not the ¢iAavSpwria of Christ 
(S€Awy july oikeidTepoy Sei~ar adrdv, 
Chrys.), but the real, vital, and essen- 
tial union between the Church and its 
Head: compare Ephes. iv. 15, 16, and 
notes in loc. ; see also Rom. xii. 5, 1 Cor. 
x. 17, Ephes. i.-23, al. és 
éoriv| ‘seeing He is;’ the relative 
having a semi-argumentative force, and 
serving to confirm the previous declara- 
tion; see Jelf, Gram. § 836.3. We can 
scarcely say that in such sentences ‘ds 
is for dru’ (Jelf, 7. c., Matth. Gr. § 480. 
c), but rather that, like the more usual 
éoris, the simple relatival force passes 
into the explanatory, which almost neces- 
sarily involves some tinge of a causal or 
argumentative meaning: see notes on 
Gal. ii. 4. &px%h| ‘ the 
beginning,’ not merely in ref. to the fol- 
lowing tév vexp&v (Meyer, Hofmann, 
Schrifth, Vol. 11. 1, p. 241; compare 
Theod.), nor even to the spiritual resur- 
rection (Daven.), both of which seem 
too limited ; nor yet, with a general and 
abstract reference, the ‘ first creative prin- 
ciple’ (Steig., Huth. ; compare Clem.- 
Alex. Strom. 1v. p. 638, 6 Ocds 5& dvap- 
Xs apx} Tay Orwy TayTeAhs),—but, as 
the more immediate context and the ref- 
erence to our Lord’s Headship of His 


mpwtdT. €k TOV vEeKpar] 


Church seem certainly to suggest, in ref. 
to the new creation (comp Caly., Corn. 
a Lap. ; 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 17), the 
following mpwrdtoKos éx T&Y veKp. Serv- 
ing to define that relation more closely, 
and to preserve the retrospective allusion 
to mpwrdr. in ver. 15: our Lord in His 
glorified humanity is the apxnybs tis 
(wis (Acts iii. 15) to His Church, the be- 
ginning, source, origin and of the new and 
spiritual, even as He was of the former 
and material, creation; see Olsh. and 
Bisp. in loc., and compare Usteri, Lehrb. 
11. 2,4, p. 304. The plausible reading 
dmapxh, adopted by Chrys. and a few 
mss., is a limiting gloss suggested by 
the next clause compared with 1 Cor. 
xv. 23. The omission of the article [in- 
serted in B, 67**] before apx} is due, 
not to the abstract form of the word 
(Olshaus.), but simply to the preceding 
verb subst., Middl. Gr. Art. 111, 3. 2. 

‘ fust- 
born from the dead ;’ not exactly identi- 
cal with mpwrdr. tay vexp@y, Rev. i. 5 
(partitive gen.), but with the proper force 
of the preposition, ‘the first-born, not 
only of, but out of the dead;’ He left 
their realm and came again as with a 
new begetting and new birth into life 
(see especially Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 
11I. p. 57) ; he was the true amapx} Tav 
kekounuevoy, 1 Cor. xv. 23: compare 
Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 241. 
Others had been translated or had risen 
to die again, He had risen with glorified 
humanity to die no more (Rom. vi. 9): 
hence He is ‘not called simply the first 
that rose, but with a note of generation, 
MpwT. ek Tav vexpay, Pearson, Creed, 
Vol. 1. p. 136 (ed. Burt.). 

iva yévnrat k.7.A.] ‘in order that 
in all things He might become (not ‘ sit,’ 
Vulg.) pre-eminent, might take the first 
place,’ ‘ primas teneat,’ Beza, Daven. ; 
TavTaXov mpaTos* avw mpATos, ev TH ek- 


. 


140 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I, 19. 


yévntat ev Taow avtos TpwTevav, 1 dtt ev ait@ eddKnoev Trav 


KAnola mp@tos, ev TH avactdce: mpeTos, 
Chrys.: divine purpose (iva has here its 
full telic force, compare on Eph. i. 17) 
of His being the apx} of the new crea- 
tion, and having the priority in the res- 
urrection, —a divine purpose fulfilled in 
its temporal, and to be fulfilled in all 
conceivable relations, when all things are 
put under His feet, and the kingdom of 
the world is become the kingdom of the 
Lord and His Christ (Rev. xi. 15). The 
tense yévnta cannot be safely pressed, 
as in the subj. the force of the aor. is 
considerably weakened and modified ; 
see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 382. The 
verb mpwrevew is an Gr. Aeydu. in the 
N. T., but is not uncommon elsewhere ; 
compare Zech. iv. 7 (Aquil.), Esth. v. 
11, 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15, invall which 
passages an idea of mporiwnois seems 
clearly conveyed. This however does 
not require a similar meaning to be as- 
signed to mpwrdr. (comp. De W., Alf.) : 
mpwrevew was to be the result, mpwrdror. 
Kk. T. A. was one of the facts which led to 
it; compare Meyer zn loc. 
év waatv] ‘in all things, surely not 
‘inter omnes,’ Beza,—a restricted ref- 
erence that completely mars the majesty 
of this passage, and contravenes the force 
of the neuter 7& mdyra in the causal sen- 
tence which follows. Lastly, airdés, as 
above, must not be left unnoticed ; ‘ si 
quis alius mortem debellasset, ete., tum 
Christus non tenuisset primatum in om- 
nibus,’ Daven. | We may observe that 
with this clause the predications respect- 
ing Christ seem here to reach their acme 
(comp. 1 Cor. xv. 28), and lead us to ad- 
mit, if not to expect, a modification of 
subj. inthe causal sentence which follows. 
19. 6c] ‘because ;’ confirmation of 
the divine purpose in reference to Christ’s 
precedence év maow: He in whom the 
whole wAnpwua (of the Sedrys) was 
pleased to reside, must needs have had 


His precedence in all things eternally. 
designed and contemplated. 

év av7@| ‘in Him, and in Him special- 
ly; connected with xarouety, and put 
early forward in the sentence to receive 
full emphasis. The reference, as the. 
context seems to show, is now more es- 
pecially to the incarnate Son. 
evddnnoev x.7.A.] ‘the whole fulness 
(of the Godhead) was pleased to dwell ;’ 
‘in ipso complacuit omnis plenitudo in- 
habitare,’ Clarom. The first difficulty 
in this profound verse is to decide on the 
grammatical subject of evdoxciy. This 
verb, a late and probably Macedonian- 
Greek word (Sturz, de Dial. Maced. p. 
167), has four constructions in the N. T., 
all personal ; with éy and a dat. (Matth. 
lil. 17, xvii. 5, al: 2 Thessalon. ii. 12 is 
doubtful), with eis and an accus. (2 Pet. 
i. 17), with a simple accus. (Heb. x. 6, 
8), with an infin. referring to the subject 
(Rom. xv. 12, 1 Corin. i. 21, al., —the 
principal and prevailing use in St. Paul’s 
Epp.) ; see Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. 11. p. 
369 sq., where the uses of edSox. are fully 
investigated. In the present case three 
subjects have been proposed ; (a) Xpio- 
rds, the preceding subject, Tertull. Mare. 
v.19, and recently Conyb., and Hofm. 
Schriftb. Vol. 11.1, p. 242, where it is 
fairly defended ; (b) Oeds, supplied from 
the context ; so, it can scarcely be doubt- 
ed, Syr., Vulg., Goth., Theod., and, by 
inference, Chrysost., Theoph., and after 
them the bulk of modern expositors ; 
(c) the expressed subject 7d wav mAfpw- 
pa; Clarom., Copt., apparently Ath., 
and recently Peile, and, very decidedly, 
Scholef. Hints, p. 108. Of these (a) in- 
volves indirect opposition to strong anal- 
ogies of Scripture (e. g. 2 Cor. v. 19), 
and, equally with (b), a harsh change of 
subject to the two infin. : the second (6) is 
dogmatically correct, but involves a very 
unusual construction of evox. (comp. 


Cuap. I. 20. 


COLOSSIANS. 


141 


fo! \ > la) . 
TO TAnpwwa Katouhoat * Kai dv avtod dmoKatadrAd bat Ta TavTa 


Polyb. Hist. 1. 8.4. vir. 4.5, 2 Mace. 
xiv. 35), a different subject to karo. 
and dmox., and further an ellipsis of a 
word, which though not without clas- 
sical parallel (see Jelf, Gr. § 373. 3) 
would here, in a passage of this dog- 
matical importance, be in a very high 
degree unnatural and improbable: the 
third (c) is syntactically simple, it is 
also in harmony with St. Paul’s regular 
usage of evdox. when associated with an 
infin., and, — what is still more impor- 
tant, — both in its causal connection, the 
nature of the expressions, and the order 
of the words (Meyer’s assertion that it 
would have been 67s way Td mA. evs. 
x. 7. A. falls to the ground ; observe also 
the order in 1 Cor. i. 21, x. 5, Galat. i. 
15), stands in closest parallel with the 
authoritative interpretation in ch. ii. 9, 
bri é€v avTG KaToLKKEl Wav TO WA. Tis Bed- 
TnTos gwu. We seem bound then to 
abide by (c),— possibly the interpretat. 
of the ancient Latin Church : it involves, 
however, as will be seen, some grave, 
though apparently not insuperable, diffi- 
culties. mav Td TAH 
pwpa] ‘the whole fulness (of the God- 
head ),’ ‘omnes divine nature divitie,’ 
Fritz. These words have been very dif- 
ferently explained. Lexically consid- 
ered, tAhpwua has three possible mean- 
ings, one active, (a) implendi actio, and 
two passive, (8) id quod impletum est, 
Ephes. i. 23 (see notes), and the more 
common (vy) id quo res impletur, Gal. iv. 
4, Ephes. iii. 9 (see notes on both pas- 
sages), which again often passes into the 
neutral and derivative (71) affluentia, 
abundantia, tAotros, — especially in con- 
nection with abstract genitives, Rom. 
xy. 29; see Fritz. Rom. xi. 12, Vol. 11. 
p- 469 sq., Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 
1, p. 26. Of these (7%), or perhaps sim- 
ply (y), is alone exegetically admissible. 
The real difficulty is in the supplemental 


gen. Setting aside all doubtful and ar- 
bitrary explanations, e.g. éxxAnola (The- 
od., Sever.), ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ 
(Schleierm.), ‘fulness of the universe’ 
(Conyb., Hofm. J. c., p. 26), we have 
only one authoritative supplement, Sed- 
tnTos, either exactly in the same sense 
as in ch. ii. 9, ‘ plenitudo Deitatis,’ or in 
the more derivative sense, ‘ plenitudo 
gratiz habitualis’ (compare Davenant, 
Mey., al.). The latter of these is adopt- 
ed by those who advocate construction 
(6) of eddox., but has this great disadvan- 
tage, that it involves two interpretations 
of tAjpwpa Sedr. (here in ref. to ‘ divina _ 
gratia,’ there to ‘divina essentia,’ so 
Mey., Alf., al.), whereas on the constr. 
of evdox. already adopted, wAnp. will nat- 
mrally be the same in both cases, and 


‘will imply ‘ the complete fulness and ex- 


haustless perfection of the Divine Es- 
sence,’ the plenitudo Deitatis,’ — an ab- 
stract term of transcendent significance, 
involving in itself the more concrete 
@eds, which, as will be seen, seems pos- 
sibly to be the subject of the following 
participial clause. When we con- 
sider the context in ch. ii. 9, there seem 
grave reasons for thinking that St. Paul 
chose this august expression with special 
reference to some vague or perverted 
meaning assigned to it by the false teach- 
ers and theosophistic speculators at Co- 
loss ; comp. Thorndike, Cov. of Grace, 
1. 15. 12. KaTOLK oat 
‘to dwell ;? aterm especially applied to 
the indwelling influence of the Father 
(compare Iiph. ii. 22), the Son (Eph. iii. 
17), and the Spirit (James iv. 5), and 
both here and ch. ii. 9, enhancing the 
personal relations involved in the myste- 
rious word mAfpwua; exe? Sknoev ove 
évépyend Tis GAN ovata, Theophyl.] 

20. amonat. Ta wavaral ‘to re- 
concile all things ;’ not ‘ prorsus reconcil- 
iare,’ Mey. (compare Chrys., katnAday- 


142 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I, 20. 


eis avTov, eipnvotroincas Sua Tov aipatos Tod oTavpod avToD, 


Mévol, GAAG TeAeiws Zder), but, with the 
natural force of amd in similar com- 
pounds (dmoxa&iordvew, dmevdetvew), 
‘jn pristinam conditionem reconciliando 
reducere ;’ see Winer, de Verb. Comp. 
Iv. p. 7,8. The subject of the inf. is of 
course the same as that of karour., 2. €., 
grammatically considered, the rAnpopa 
above, but exegetically, —as the follow- 
ing adrdy and other scriptural analogies 
(compare 2 Cor. v. 19, Eph. i. 10) seem 
to suggest, the more definite @eds, in- 
volved and included in the more mysti- 
cal and abstract designation. The reve- 
lation contained in these words is of the 
most profound nature, and must be in- 
terpreted with the utmost caution and 
reverence. Without presuming to di- 
lute, or to assign any improper ‘ elas- 
ticity’ (Mey.) to, the significant aroxar. 
(e.g. ‘reunionem creaturarum inter se 
invicem,’ Dalleeus), or to limit the com- 
prehensive and unrestricted Ta mdyra 
(e.g. ‘universam Ecclesiam,’ Beza, ‘om- 
nes homines,’ Corn. a Lap.), we must 
guard against the irreverence of far- 
reaching speculations on the reconcilia- 
tion of the finite and the infinite (Usteri, 
Lehvb, 11. 1. 1, p. 129, Marheineke, 
Dogm. § 331 sq.), to which this mighty 
declaration has been supposed to allude. 
This, and no less than this, it does say,— 
that the eternal and incarnate Son is the 
‘causa medians’ by which the absolute 
totality of created things shall be restored 
into its primal harmony with its Creator, 
— a declaration more specifically unfold- 
ed in the following clause: more than 
this it does not say, and where God is 
silent it is not for man to speak. See 
the sober remarks of Hofmann, Schrifib. 
Vol. 1. p. 188 sq. The mysterious dyva- 
Kepadamoacsat, Ephes. i. 10 (obs. both 
the prep. and the voice), is a more gen- 
eral and perhaps more developed, while 
2 Cor. v. 19, Kéopoy KaTaAA. is a more 


limited and more specific, representation 
of the same eternal truth: see Destiny of 
Creature, p. 85 sq. eis 
attéyv] ‘unto Himself,’ i.e. to God, 
couched in the foregoing mAfpwua: a 
‘ pregnans constructio,’—the preposi- 
tion marking the reconciled access to 
(comp. Eph. ii. 18), and union with the 
Creator; compare Winer, Gr. § 66. 2, 
p- 547. The simple dative (Eph. ii. 16; 
compare Rom. v. 10, 2 Cor. v. 19, al.) 
expresses the object to whom and for 
whom the action is directed, but leaves 
the further idea conveyed by the prep. 
unnoticed. There is no need to read 
airédy (Griesb., Scholz), as the reference 
to the subject is unemphatic; see notes 
on Eph.i. 4. eipnvoTotnh- 
aas| ‘having made peace ;’ i. e. God,— 
a simple and intelligible change of gen- 
der suggested by the preceding aitrby 
and the personal subject involved in the 
subst. with which the participle is gram- 
matically connected; in fact, ‘a con- 
struct. mpds Td bt oonuawouevov. The 
parallel passage Eph. ii. 15, moi@y eiph- 
vnv, would almost seem to justify a ref- 
erence to the Son (Theod., Gicumen.) 
by the common participial anacoluthon 
(Steiger; compare Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, 
p- 505), but as this would seriously dis- 
locate the sentence by separating the 
modal participial clause from the finite 
verb, and would introduce confusion 
among the pronouns, we retain the more 
simple and direct construction. Thus 
then the two constructions (b) and (c) 
noticed in ver. 19 ultimately coincide in 
referring verse 20 to God, not Christ; 
and it is worthy of thought whether the 
ancient Syr. and Clarom. Vv. may not, 
by different grammatical processes, ex- 
hibit a traditional ref. of ver. 20 to God, 
of a very remote, and perhaps even au- 
thoritative antiquity. 51a 
Tov alu. Tod oraup.] ‘by theblood of 


Cuap. I. 20, 21. 


COLOSSIANS. 143 


, n \ ‘ n an Yj a rn 
du avTov, cite Ta Ertl THS ys elite Ta €v ols ovpavots. 


You who were alienated 
He reconciled by His death, 


"1 Kat buds wore ovtas amn\doTpiwpevous 


if at least ye remain firm in the faith and abide by the hope of the Gospel. 


(2. e. shed upon) the cross ;’ more specific 


and circumstantial statement of the ‘ cau- 
sa medians’ of the reconciliation. The 
gen. is what is termed of ‘ remoter ref- 
erence,’ forming in fact a species of bre- 
viloquentia: see especially Winer, Gr. 
§ 30. 2, p. 168, where numerous exam- 
ples are collected. de 
avtov| ‘by Him;’ it is scarcely neces- 
sary to say that 6? adrod does not refer 
to the immediately preceding 6a tov 
aiu., but to the more remote 6? avrod of 
which it is a vivid and emphatic repeti- 
tion. These words are omitted in some 
MSS. [BD!FGL; 10 mss.], but almost 
obviously to facilitate the construction. 

elite T& ev ovp. k.7.A.| ‘whether 
the things upon the earth or the things in 
the heavens ;’ disjunctive enumeration of 
the ‘universitas rerum,’ as in ver. 16, 
with this only difference, that the order 
is transposed, — possibly from the more 
close connection of the death of Christ 
with ra él rijs yas. It is hardly neces- 
sary to say that the language precludes 
any idea of reconciliation between the oc- 
cupants of earth and heaven (apparently 
Cyril.-Hieros. Catech. xiv. 3, Chrys. (in 
part), Theod., al.) or, in reference to 
the latter, of any reconciliation of only 
a retrospectively preservative nature 
(Bramhall, Dise. 1v. Vol. v. p. 148). 
Jiow the reconciliation of Christ affects 
the spiritual world — whether by the an- 
nihilation of ‘ posse peccare,’ or by the 
infusion of a more perfect knowledge 
(Eph. iii. 10), or (less probably) some 
restorative application to the fallen spir- 
itual world (Orig., Neand. Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 531), — we know not, and we dare 
not speculate: this, however, we may 
fearlessly assert, that the efficacy of the 
sacrifice of the Eternal Son is infinite 
and limitless, that it extends to all things 


in earth and heaven, and that it is the 
blessed medium by which, between God 
and His creatures, whether angelical, 
human, animate, or inanimate (Rom. 
vill. 19 sq.), peace is wrought; see the 
valuable note of Harless on ph. i. 10, 
especially p. 52, Hofmann, Schriflb. Vol. 
I. p. 189, and comp. Wordsw. in loc. 
21. kal bas] ‘and you also:’ new 
clause, to be separated by a period (not 
merely bya comma, Lachm., Bisp.) from 
ver. 20, descriptive of the application of 
the universal reconciliation to the special 
case of the Colossians ; compare ch. ii. 
13, and see notes on Eph. ii. 1. The 
structure involyes a slight anacoluthon : 
the apostle probably commenced with 
the intention of placing suas under the 
immediate regimen of aroxathAA., but 
was led by woré dvtas into the contrasted 
clause vuy) Se before he inserted the verb ; 
compare Winer, Gram. § 63. 1, p. 504. 
The reading aoxarnAAdynte adopted by 
Lachm. and Meyer with B [D1FG; Cla- 
rom.; Iren., al., have dmroxatraddayevtes] 
involves an equally intelligible, though 
much stronger anacoluthon, but has not 
sufficient external support. 
dvtTas amnaAdorp.| ‘being alienated,’ 
‘being ina state of alienation,’ scil. ‘ from 
God ;’ compare Eph. iv. 28. The part. 
of the verb subst. is used with the perf. 
part. to express yet more forcibly the 
continuing state of the alienation ; com- 
pare Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 511. For 
illustrations of the emphatic verb aaAa. 
(‘abalienati,’ Beza), see notes on Eph. 
ii. 12, where the application is more ex- 
pressly restricted. Both there and Eph. 
iv. 28, the Ephesians were represented 
as a portion of heathenism, here the Co- 
lossians are represented as a portion of 
the ‘universitas rerum,’ to whom the: 
redeeming power of Christ extends. 


144 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I 21, Bass 


L éySpovs TH Stavola ev Tots Epyous TOls TroVNpots, vuvl dé a7ro- 
Kal éySpovs TH Q Tots Epyous Tots Tovnpots, 
t 99 2 cal , n \ >’ a PS) NV a % / 
KaTnrakev * ev TH TwWmaTL THS GapKOsS avTod dia Tod Savdrou, 


exSpovs tH Stav.] ‘ enemies in your 
understanding ;’ not passive, ‘regarded 
as enemies by God’ (Meyer, who com- 
pares Rom. v. 10), but, as the subjective 
tinge given by the limiting dative and 
the addition éy rots py. seem to imply, 
active; éxXpol Ate, ono, Kal TH TOY ex- 
Spav emparrete, Chrysost. The dative 
diavoia is what is termed the dat. of ref- 
erence to (see notes on Gal. i. 22), and 
represents, as it were, the peculiar spir- 
itual seat of the hostility (comp. notes on 
Eph. iv. 18), while éyv rots épyos marks 
the practical spheres and substrata in 
which the @ySpa was evinced ; comp. Hu- 
ther zn loc. On the meaning of didvoia, the 
‘higher intellectual nature’ (d:éfod0s Ao- 
yuh, Orig.), especially as shown in its 
practical relations (contrast évvo., Heb. 
iv. 12), see the good remarks of Beck, 
Seelenl. 11. 19. b, p. 58. The 
addition tots moynpots, not simply éy Tots 
mov. épy., serves to give emphasis, and 
direct attention to the real character of 
the épya; Winer, Gr. § 20. 1, p. 119. 

vuvl 5& a@rokat.| ‘yet now hath He 
( God, see next note) reconciled:’ antith- 
esis to the preceding woré bvtas, the op- 
positive d¢ in the apodosis being evoked 
by the latent ‘although’ (Donalds. Gr. 
§ 621) involved in the participial prota- 
sis; compare Xen. Mem. 111. 7. 8, éxel- 
vous podiws xetpovmevos, TovToLs 5é undéva 
tpdmov ote. Svvhoeodat mpocevexdijvat, 
and see the note and reff. of Kiihner, 
also Buttmann, Mid. Excurs. x11. p.148: 
add Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 374, Har- 
tung, Partik. Sé, 5. 6, Vol. 1. p. 186. 
Such a construction is not common in 
Attic writers. In this union of the em- 
phatic particle of absclutely present time 
with the aor. (comp. Hartung, Partik. 
Vol. 11. p. 24) the aor. is not equivalent 
to a pres. or perf., but marks with the 
proper force of the tense, that the action 


followed a given event (here, as the 
context suggests, the atoning death of 
Christ), and is now done with ; see Do- 
nalds. Gr. § 433, compared with Fritz. 
de Aor. p. 6, 17. Meyer pertinently 
compares Plato, Symp. p. 193 A, mpd 
Tov... &v Huev, vurt de Sid THY Gductav 
dipxlodsnucy bd Tod Seod. 

22. éy TG odpm. x.7.A.] ‘in the 
body of His flesh,’ i. e., as the language 
and allusion undoubtedly requires, — the 
flesh of Christ; the prep. ev pointing to 
the substratum of the action ; see notes on 
Gal. i. 24, and comp. especially Andoe. 
de Myst. p. 33 (ed. Schill.) 6 pév ayav 
évy TH ThuaT: TH Cue Kadséorynkev. It 
may justly be considered somewhat 
doubtful whether the subject of the pres- 
ent clause, and of the verb dmoxarfA- 
Aakey is regarded as Christ (Chrysost., 
Cicum., al.), or God. In favor of the 
first supposition we have the use of od- 
watt (which seems to suggest an identi- 
ty between the subject to which the céua 
refers and the subject of the verb), per- 
haps the use of rapacrijoa (comp. Eph. 
vy. 27, but contrast 2 Cor. iv. 14), and 
the ready connection of such a purpose 
with the fact specified by dzroxar. (comp. 
De Wette), and lastly, the semi-parallel 
passage, Eph. ii. 13. Still the difficulty 
of a change of subject, —the natural 
transition from the more general act on 
the part of God alluded to in ver. 20 to 
the more particular application of the 
same to the Colossians, — the fuller am- 
plification which this verse seems to be 
of the substance of ver. 13,— and the 
similarity between the circumstantial 
dia Tod alu. trod ot. above and the cir- 
cumstantial ev re odpm. x. 7. A. in the 
present verse, seem to supply distinctly 
preponderant arguments, and lead us 
with Bengel, Huth., and others, to refer 
anoxar. to the subject of ver. 20, 7. e. to 


Cuap. I. 22, 


COLOSSIANS. 


145 


Tapacthaas vuds drylovs Kal dpdwous Kal aveyKAjTOUS KATEVOTLOV 


God. Many reasons have been assigned 
why St. Paul adds the specifying gen. 
(substantie, Winer, Gr. § 30. 2) rijs cap- 
nds. Two opinions deserve considera- 
tion; (a) that it was to oppose some 
forms of Docetic error which were pre- 
vailing at Colossx, Steiger, Huther, al. ; 
(b) that it was directed against a false 
spiritualism, which, from a mistaken as- 
ceticism (ch. ii. 23), led to grave error 
with respect to the efficacy of Christ’s 
atonement in the flesh; so Meyer, fol- 
lowed by Alford. As there are no di- 
rect, and appy. no indirect (contrast 
Tgnat. Magnes. § 9, 11, al.) allusions to 
Docetic error traceable in this Epistle, 
the opinion (6) is, on the whole, to be 
preferred. That the addition is used to 
mark the distinction between this and 


the Lord’s spiritual oma, the Church, 


(Olsh.), does not seem natural or prob- 
able. 51a Tov Say] ‘by 
means of His death ;’ added to the pre- 
ceding éy TG odu. to express the means by 
which the reconciliation was so wrought : 
it was by means of death, borne in, and 
accomplished in that blessed body, that 
reconciliation was brought about; com- 
pare some valuable remarks in Jackson, 
Creed: vitt. 8. 4. 

Tapaactioaat| ‘to present ;’ infinitive, 
expressing the actual purpose and intent 
of the action expressed in dmor.; see 
Madvig, Synt. § 118, where this mood 
is extremely well discussed. Had éore 
been inserted, the idea of manner or de- 
gree would rather have come into prom- 
inence (Madvig, § 166), and the mean- 
ing would literally have been ‘ as with 
the intention: of, etc.,’ the finite verb 
being in fact again tacitly supplied after 
éore ; see especially Weller, Bemerk. z, 
Griech. Synt. p. 14 (Mein. 1843). Meyer 
calls attention. to the tense, but it must 
be observed that in the infin. the aorist, 
except after verbs declarandi vel sentiendi, 


d 


is commonly obscured (Madvig, § 172), 
especially as here in an aoristic sequence. 
On rapaorhoau, which certainly conveys 
no sacrificial idea, comp. on Eph. v. 27. 
There the reference is more restricted, 
here more general. 

aylovs cat am. ral averyn.| ‘holy 
and blameless and without charge ;’ desig- 
nation of their contemplated state on its 
positive and negative side (Mey.), aylovs 
marking the former, audéu. kad aveykar. 
the latter. Strictly considered then, the 
first and second xa are not perfectly co- 
ordinate and similar: they do not con- 
nect three different ideas (‘ erga Deum, 
respectu vestri, respectu proximi,’ Ben- 
gel) nor simply aggregate three similar 
ideas (Dayen.) ; but, while the first con- 
nects the two members of the latent an- 
tithesis, the second is, as it were, under 
a vinculum joining the component parts 
of the second member. On the meaning 
of %uwuos (inculpatus, not immaculatus), 
see notes on Eph. i. 4: it is apparently 
less strong than the following aveyka. ; 
aveykA. yap téTe Ayer, drav pnde 
méexpt Katayvecews unde mexpr eyKAtua- 
Tos 7} TL Temparyuevoy huiv, Chrysostom. 
Lastly, on the distinction between ayéy- 
KAnTos and averlAnmros (‘in quo nulla 
justa causa sit reprehensionis ’), see Titt. 
mann, Synon. I. p. 31. 

KaTevemiov avtrod| ‘before Him;’ 
God,—not Christ (Mey.), a reference 
neither. natural nor easily reconcilable 
with the very similar passage, Eph. i. 4. 
There, may be here a faint reference to 
the ‘day of Christ’s appearing,’ Alford, 
but it does not seem perfectly certain - 
from the context. With respect to the 
question whether ‘sanctitas imputata’ 
(Huth.), or, perhaps more probably, 
‘sanctitas inherens, (Chrys. ; compare 
notes on Eph. i. 4) is here alluded to, 
the remark of Davenant seems just, — 
‘cum dicit, ut sistat nos sanctos, non ut 

19 


146 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 23. 


> n 93, 7 ? LA lol Z. S , » 4 ES lal A 
avtov: 73 eltye ETTLLEVETE TH TLOTEL TESEMEALWPLEVOL KAL EOPALOL, KaL 


\ / eX a 9 ‘S nee ri e 9» s 
BN) PETAKLVOULEVOL ATTO THS EATTLOOS TOU EVAYYEALOU OU NKOVOAaTE, 


sisteremus nos, manifestum est ipsos re- 
conciliatos et renatos sanctitatem suam 
a Christo mutuari, sive de actuali, sive 
de inhzrente, sive de imputata loqui- 
mur,’ p. 113 (ed. 3); ‘whensoever we 
have any of these we have all, — they go 
together,’ Hooker, Serm. on Justification, 
11. 21. 

23. elye emi. TH wmlaoTe] ‘ifat 
least ye continue in the faith ;’ a tropical 
use of émm. peculiar to St. Paul, Rom. 
vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16: émm., 
Acts xiii. 45 (Rec.), has scarcely any 
critical support. Like several compounds 
of ér} it has two constructions (see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 52.7. p. 882), with preposi- 
tions émi, mpéds, év (Acts xxviii. 14, 1 
Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. i. 24), and with the 
simple dative (Rom. Jl. cc., 1 Tim. 1. c.) 
which apparently is semilocal (comp. on 
Gal. v. 1), or, perhaps more probably, 
under the influence of the preposition. 
The preposition em is not (per se) inten- 
sive (Alf.), but appears to denote rest at 
a place, see notes on Gal. i. 18. On the 
meaning of efye, see notes on Eph. iii. 2, 
and on the distinction between eye (si 
quidem) and evzep (si omnino), see notes 
on Gal. iii. 4. TEDEMEA. 
kar €Spato:] ‘grounded and firm;’ 
specification on the positive side of the 
mode of the émmovh; compare Eph. iii. 
17, éppiopevor xal TedeweArwpevor, and 1 
Cor. xv. 58, €5pator, dueraxivnro. The 
qualitative termination -aos seems to 
justify the distinction of Beng., ‘redeu. 
affixi fundamento, é6p. stabiles, firmi 

-intus.’ That there is any reference to 
the metaphor of a temple (Olsh.), seems 
here very doubtful. Ka 
wh metaniv.|] ‘and not being moved 
away ;’ nearly identical with auerakivn- 
rot, 1 Cor. xv. 58, and representing their 
fixity on its negative side: the change to 
the present pass.,—as marking by the 


tense the process that might be going 
on, and by the mood (pass., not act., as 
De Wette), that of which they were now 
liable to be the victims, —is especially 
suitable and exact; see the suggestive 
example cited by Alford, viz. Xenoph. 
Rep. Lac. xv. 1, moartelas petarexwnpe- 
On the 
by with perax., which, in a hypothetical 
sentence like the present, is usual and 
proper, see, if necessary, Winer, Gram. 
§ 55. 1, p. 522. THS €AT. 
Tod evayy.-| ‘ the hope of the Gospel,’ 
7. e. arising from, evoked by, the Gospel, 
Tov evayy. being the genitive of the ori- 
gin or rather the originating agent ; see 
Hartung, Casus, p. 17, and comp. notes 
on 1 Thess. i. 6. To regard it as a pos- 
sess. gen. (Alf.) gives an unnecessary 
vagueness to the expression. Such gen- 
itives as those of the oriyin (Hartung, 
p- 17), originating agent, and perhaps a 
shade stronger, the causa efficiens (Scheu- 
erl. Synt. § 17), all belong to the gen- 
eral category of the gen. of ‘ablation’ 
(Donalds. Gr. § 448, 449) : the context 
alone must guide us in our choice. *EA- 
ms can hardly be here, except in a very 
derivative sense, equivalent to 6 Xpiords, 
Chrys. ; it seems only to have its usual 
subjective meaning ; compare notes on 
Eph. i. 18. ot nKrotoartel 
‘which ye heard, scil. when it was first 
preached to you; not ‘have heard,’ 
Auth., —here certainly an unnecessary 
introduction of the auxiliary. This and 
the two following clauses serve to give 
weight to the foregoing wh metakivotpe- 
they had heard the Gospel, the 
world had heard it (wdAw avrods pepe 
pdptupas, eita Thy oixoumevnv, Chrys.), 
and he the writer of this Epistle, — who 
though probably not their founder (see 
on verse 7), yet stood in close relation 
to them through Epaphras, — was the 


vas Kab &rt voy meTakivoupevas. 


vol: 


¢ 


Cuap. I. 23, 24. 


COLOSSIANS. 


147 


n ff Uj rovnk \ \ > 
TOD KNpUXSEVTOS EV TATH. KTIGEL TH UITO TOV OvpaVoY, Ov eyevounv 


Be N a ’ 
éy@ IlaiXos SudKovos. 
I rejoice in my sufferings 
for you and the Church; I 


4 Nov yatpw év trois TaSjpwacw brép tpuar, 


am preaching the mystery of salvation, and striving to present every man perfect before Christ. 


preacher of it; at todro cis 7d Géidmo- 
tov ovytede?, Chrys. The apostle gives 
weight to his assertions by the special 
mention of his name, 2 Cor x. 1, Gal. 
vy. 2, Eph. iii. 1, 1 Thess. ii. 18, Philem. 
19. évy waon KkTloet| 
“in the hearing of every creature ;’ surely 
not ‘in the whole of creation,’ Alf., —a 
translation which, even if we concede 
that maca xtlois may be equivalent to 
‘every form of creation,’ ¢. e. ‘all crea- 
tures’ (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 187), 
would be needlessly inexact. The art. 
is inserted in D°EKL (Rec.), but clearly 
has not sufficient critical support. This 
noble hyperbole only states in a slightly 
different form what the Lord had com- 
manded, Mark xvi. 15: the inspired 
apostle, as Olsh. well says, sees the uni- 
versal tendency of Christianity already 
realized. The limitation, 77 51d rdy odp. 
characterizes the xriois as émtyeios, in- 
cluding however, thereby, all mankind. 
For the meaning of év, apud, coram, — 
perhaps here with singular reverting 
somewhat to the primary idea of sphere 
of operation, see Winer, Gr. § 48. a. d, 
y 34. didkovos| ‘a min- 
ister; see notes on Ephes. iii. 7. The 
three practical deductions which Dave- 
nant draws from this clause are worthy 
of perusal. 

24. viv xalpo| Transition suggest- 
ed by the preceding clauses, especially 
by the last, to the apostle’s own services 
in the cause of the Gospel. The viv is 
not merely transitional (compare Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 677), but, as its posi- 
tion shows, purely temporal and em- 
phatic (2 Corinth. vii. 9), ‘now, with the 
chain round my wrist’ (Eadie), forming 
a contrast with the past time involved in 
the foregoing knpuxSévros and éyerdsunv. 


=) 


The reading $s viv x. 7. A. (DIEIFG ; 
Vulg., Clarom., al.) seems either due to 
the preceding letters, or was intended to 
keep up the supposed connection between 
ver. 25 and ver. 23. ev 
mrasxhwactv| Not exclusively ‘de iis 
qu patior,’ Beza, but simply ‘in pas- 
sionibus,’ Vulg. ; the waSjuara were not 
only the subject whereupon he rejoiced, 
but the sphere, the circumstances in 
which he did so; xalpw méoxwv, Chrys. 
The brief and semi-adverbial év robrw 
(Phil. i. 18) is perhaps slightly different. 
The omission of the article before émtp 
juey arises from mdéoxew brép being a 
legitimate construction ; see notes on 
Eph. i. 15. bwép buadr| 
‘for you,’ not ‘in your place,’ Steig., 
nor, with a causal reference, ‘on your 
account,’ Eadie, ‘ vestra causa,’ Just. 
(compare Est. and Corn. a Lap.), but 
‘vestro fructu et commodo,’ Beza, ‘zum 
Vortheil,’ Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 342, as 
the more usual meaning of the prep. in 
the N. T. and its use below both suggest. 
On the uses of the preposition compare 
notes on Gal. i. 4, iii. 18, Phil. i. 7. 
avravamwnr. K.7.A.] ‘am filling fully 
up the lacking measures of the sufferings of 
Christ.’ The meaning of these words 
has formed the subject both of exegetical 
discussion and polemical application ; 
compare Cajet. de Induly. Qu. 3, Bellar- 
mine, de Indulg. Cap. 8. Without en- 
tering into the latter, we will endeavor 
briefly to state the grammatical and con- 
textual meaning. of the words. 

(1) SAtWers Xptorod is clearly not 
‘afflictiones propter Christum subeun- 
dx,’ Elsner (Vol. 11. p. 260), Schoettg., 
al., nor ‘calamitates quas Christus per- 
ferendas imposuit,’ Fritz. (Rom. Vol. 
Ill. p. 275), —a somewhat artificial gen. 


148 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I, 24, 25, 


Ap ca) \ a a nr 
Kat avTavaTANp@ Ta voTEepnwata TOV SrApewv Tod Xpiotov ev TH 
capki jou UTEP TOV Taparos avTov, 6 éoTw 1 eKKAnolar » ag 


auctoris, —but simply and plainly ‘ the 
afflictions of Christ,’ 7. e. which apper- 
tain to Christ, not, however, with corpo- 
real reference, doa bréuewe, Theod., but 
which are His (Xp. being a pure posses- 
sive genit.; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 
2, p. 170, note), of which He is the mys- 
tical subject ; see below. But 
(2) how are the torephuara of these af- 
flictions filled up by the apostle? Not 
(a) by the endurance of afilictions similar 
(&cattws, Theod.) to those endured (dzo- 
otatix@s) by his Master (comp. Heb. xiii. 
13, 1 Pet. iv. 13), and by drinking out of 
the same cup (Matth. xx. 23), as Huth., 
Mey., — for, independently of all other 
considerations, the distinctive feature of 
the Lord’s SAhpes, vicarious suffering 
(Olshaus.), was lacking in those of. His 
apostle (ob yap cov TodTo ovdE Suoloy, 
moAAoD ye Kat det, CEcum.), —but, (bd), 
in the deeper sense given to it by Chrys., 
Theoph., Gicum., and recently adopted 
by De Wette, Eadie, Alf., al., — by the 
endurance of afflictions which Christ en- 
dures in His suffering Church (cxere- 
kos), and of which the wAjpwpa has not 
yet come ; see Olsh. in loc., who has well 
defended this vital and consolatory in- 
terpretation, and compare August. in 
Psalm. \xi. 4, Vol. 1v. p. 781 (edit. 
Migne). (3) The meaning 
of avtTavamAnpodyr has yet to be con- 
sidered ; this is not ‘ vicissim explere’ 
(Beza, compare Tittmann, Synon. 11. p. 
230), nor ‘cum Christo calamitates im- 
ponente in malis perferendis zmulans’ 
(Fritz.),—a somewhat artificial inter- 
pretation, nor even ‘ alterius daréepnua de 
suo explere’ (Winer, de Verb. Comp. 
111. 22), but, as Mey. suggests, ‘to meet, 
and fill up the torépnua with a corres- 
ponding mhpwua;’ the dy7t contrasting 
not the actors or their acts (contrast Xen- 
oph. Hell. 11. 4. 12, avravérAnoay com- 


pared with a previous éurAjjoat), but the 
defect and the supply with which it is 
met: see the examples cited by Winer; 
especially Dio Cass. xuiv. 8, dcov évédes 
TOUTO ek THS Tapa TaY %AAwy ouyTEeAclas 
avravanAnpwoh. The simpler avamAnpdw 
[found in FG; mss. : Orig. in allusion] 
would have expressed nearly the same ; 
the double compound, however, specifies 
more accurately the intention of the ac- 
tion, and the circumstances (the torepf- 
ata) which it was intended to meet. 
For a practical sermon on this text, see 
Donne, Serm. xovir. Vol. rv. p. 261 sq. 
(ed. Alf.), and compare Destiny of Crea- 
ture, p. 89 sq. év TH 
capri pov clearly belongs to dayta- 
vamA., defining more closely the seat, and 
thence, inferentially, the mode, of the 
avtavaTAnpwots (compare 2 Cor. iy. 11, 
Gal. iv. 14); the word capt, which thus 
involves the predication of manner, 
standing, as Meyer acutely observes, in 
exquisite contrast’with the c@ua, which 
defines the object of the action. Steiger, 
Huther, al., connect this clause with 
SAlpewy. Tod Xp.: this may be grammat- 
ically possible (Winer, Gr.§ 20. 2, p. 
123), but is exegetically untenable, as it 
would but reiterate what is necessarily 
involved in the use of the first person of 
the verb. 6 é€otiv éxKA.] 
As éxka. might be thought the word of 
importance, the construction #tis eoTw 
éxxaA., 1 Tim. iii. 15, might have seemed 
more natural; compare Winer, Gr. § 24. 
8, p. 150. The present construction is, 
however, perfectly correct, as the article 
and defining gen. associated with o@pa, 
as well as the antithetical contrast in 
which it stands with cdpé, point to c@ua 
as the subst. on which the chief moment 
of thought really dwells. 

25. Fs eyevdunv x. 7.A.] ‘of 
which I (Paul) became a minister :’ state- 


Cuap. I. 25. 


COLOSSIANS. 


eyevouny éy@ SudKovos KdTa THY oiKovouiay Tod Ocod THY SoSeicav 


ment of the relation in which he stands 
to the éxxAnola just mentioned, the js 
having a faintly causal, or rather explan- 
atory force (see notes on ver. 18, and 
Ellendt. Lex. Soph. s. vy. Vol. 11. p. 371), 
and indirectly giving the reason and 
moving principle of the avravarAnpwos ; 
‘Ifill up the lacking measures of the 
sufferings of Christ in behalf of His body 
the Church, being an appointed minister 
thereof, and having a spiritual function 
in it committed to me by God.’ The 
éy® continues, in a slightly changed 
relation, the éyw& MavaAos of ver. 23: there 
the diaxovia referred to the evayy., here 
to the Church by which the ciayy. is 
preached; ‘idem plane est ministrum 
Ecclesiz esse et. Evangelii,’ Just. 

KaTa& THY oiKoY. Oeod| ‘in accordance 
with the dispensation, i.e. the spiritual 
stewardship, of God ;’ tis éxxanolas éve- 
TMoTEvIny Thy TwTnplay, Kal THY TOD Ky- 
puyuaros évexepiodny Siaxoviay, Theod. 
The somewhat difficult word oikovoy. 
seems here, in accordance with ryy do- 
Setoay «x. 7. A. which follows, to refer, 
not to the ‘disposition of God, Syriac 

o> oO 4 

{2Zaljo,\ [gubernationem], Gothic 
‘ragina,’ Eth. ‘ordinationem,’ but, as 
Just., Mey., al., to the ‘spiritual func- 
tion,’ the ‘ office of an oixovouos’ (see 1 
Cor. ix. 17, compared with 1 Cor. iv. 1), 
originating from, or assigned by, God; 
the more remote gen. @covd denoting 
either the origin of the commission (Har- 
tung, Casus, p. 17), or, with more of a 
possessive force, Him to whom it be- 
longed and in whose service it was 
borne: see Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 9, 
Vol. 11. p. 93, and notes on Eph. i. 10, 
where the meanings of oixovou. in the 
N. T. are briefly noticed and classified. 

rnv Sodsetoay x.7.A.| ‘which was 
given me for you;’ further definition of 
the oixoy.. ro} @eod, the meaning of 


which, owing to the different meanings 
of oixov., might otherwise have been 
misunderstood : ‘ this ofcovouia was spe- 
cially assigned to me and you, — you, 
Gentiles, were to be its objects.’ The 
connection of eis Suds with mAnp. (Scho- 
lef. Hints, p. 110) does not seem plausi- 
ble : the juxtaposition of the pronouns 
(mo eis duas) suggests their logical con- 
nection. TAHpP@®otat thy 
Ady. 70d @.] ‘to fulfil the word of 
, God;’ i.e. ‘to perform my office in 
preaching unrestrictedly, to give all its 
fuil scope to the word of God:’ infin, of 
design (see notes on ver. 22) dependent 
either on fs éyevéuny (Huth.), or per- 
haps more naturally on chy d0Setcav 
k. T. A., thus giving an amplification to 
the preceding eis juas. The glosses on 
TAnpGoa are exceedingly numerous ; the 
most probable seem, (a) ‘ad plene expo- 
nendam totam salutis doctrinam,’ Da- 
ven. 1, compare Olsh., and Tholuck, 
Bergpr. p. 136 ; (b) ‘to spread abroad,’ 
Huth.,—who compares Acts vy. 28; (c) 
‘to give its fullest amplitude to, to fill 
up the measures of its fore-ordained uni- 
versality,’ not perhaps without some al- 
lusion to the oixovoula which would thus 
be fully discharged ; compare Rom. xv. 
19, wéxpe TOU IAAupiKod meTANpwKevan Td 
evayyéAtoy ToD Xp. Of these (b) has an 
advantage over (a) in implying a wA#- 
pwois viewed extensively, in haying, in 
fact, a quantitative rather than a quali- 
tative reference, but fails in exhausting 
the meaning and completely satisfying 
the context; (c) by carrying out the idea 
further, and pointing to the Adyos as 
something which was to have a universal 
application, and not be confined to a 
single nation (hence the introduction of 
eis buds), seems most in accordance with 
the spirit of the passage and with the 
words that follow; compare the some- 
what analogous expression, 6 Adyos Tov 


150 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 26, 27. 


> re: lal lal fal la 
Hot eis Las TANPATaL Tov OYov TOD Ocod, * Td pvaTipLOV TO 


> / > \ an a. AY \ an an \ Ap 
AT OKEK PULL LEVOV ATO TOV ALWYWV KAL ATTO TWV YEVEMV, VUVL Ys epa- 


/ lal ‘ r i \ 
veposn Tois aylos avtod, ™ ois néAncev 6 Ocos yvwpicat Ti 


@cod niéave, Acts vi. 7, xii. 24. It need 
hardly be added that the Adyos rod cod 
does not imply the ‘ promissiones Dei, 
partim de Christo in genere, partim de 
yocatione Gentium,’ Beza, but simply 
and plainly ro evayyéAiov, as in i Cor. 
xiv. 36, 2 Corinth. ii. 17, 1 Thessal. ii. 
138, al. 

26. 7d pvothptovy td amok] 
‘the mystery which hath been hidden ;’ ap- 
position to the preceding rbv Adyoy rod 
@cod. The pvorhpiov was the divine 
purpose of salvation in Christ, and, more 
especially, as the context seems to show, 
‘de saivandis Gentibus per gratiam eyan- 
gelicam,’ Daven.; see Ephes. ili. 4 sq., 
and compare Eph.i. 9. On the mean- 
ings of uwvothpioy in the N. T., see notes 
on Eph. v. 32, and Reuss, Theol. Chreét. 
Iv. 9, Vol. 11. p. 88, where the applica- 
tions of the term in the N. T. are briefly 
elucidated. ans TOY 
aidvov K.T.A.] ‘srom the ages and 
Jrom the generations (that have passed) ;’ 
from the long temporal periods (aidves) 
and the successive generations that made 
them up (yeveat; see on Eph. iii. 21), 
which have elapsed (observe the article) 
since the ‘ arcanum decretum’ was con- 
cealed. The expression is not identical 
with mpd t&v aidywy, 1 Cor. ii. 7; the 
counsel was formed 7 pb Tay aidvwy, but 
concealed 47 tév aidywy; comp. Rom. 
xvi. 25, and see notes on Eph. iii. 9, 
where the same expression occurs. 
vuvi d& épaveposn| ‘but now has 
been made manifest ;’ transition from the 
participial to the finite construct., sug- 
gested by the importance of the predica- 
tion; see notes on Eph. i. 20, and Winer, 
Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505 sq., where other 
examples are noticed and discussed. 
The gavéepwors, the actual and historical 
manifestation (De W.), took place, as 


Meyer observes, in different ways, partly 
by revelation (Ephes. iii. 5), partly by 
preaching (ch. iv. 4, Tit. i.3) and expo- 
sition (Rom. xvi. 26), and partly by all 
combined. On the connection of yur} 
[Lachm. viv, with BCFG; mss. ; Did.] 
with the aor., see notes on ver. 21, and 
for a good distinction between viy (ém 
TOY Tpilwy xpdvwy) and vuyt (em pdvov 
éveot@tos), see Ammonius, Voc. Dif. 
p- 99, ed. Valck. Tots aytots 
aitot| To limit these words to the 
apostles, from a comparison with Eph. 
iii. 5 (Steiger, Olsh.: FG; Boern. actu- 
ally insert amogrdAois), or to the elect, 
‘quos Deus in Christo consecrandos de- 
crevit’ (Daven. 1), is highly unsatisfac- 
tory, and quite contrary to St. Paul’s 
regular and unrestricted use of the word ; 
so Theod., who, however, shows that he 
remembered Eph. iii. 5, ro?s amoordaAats, 
Kal Tots Sia TovTwy memorevkdct. On 
the meaning of dyos, see notes on yer. 
2, and on Eph. i. 1. 

27. ofs HXEAHGEYV 6 O.] ‘towhom 
God did will ;’ i. e. ‘seeing that to them 
it was God’s will,’ etc., the relative hav- 
ing probably here, as in ver. 25, an indi- 
rectly causal, or explanatory force (‘ra- 
tionem adjungit,’ Daven.), and reiterat- 
ing the subject to introduce more readily 
the specific purpose yvwpioa Kk. T. A. 


‘which was contemplated by God in the 


pavépwois. The most recent commenta- 
tors, Meyer, Eadie, Alf., rightly reject 
any reference of #%éAncev to the free 
grace of God (Eph. i. 9, kara Thy evdo- 
Klay avrov), no such idea being Aere in- 
volved in the context: what 7%éAncev 
here implies is, not on the one hand, that 
God ‘ was pleased’ (‘ propensionem vo- 
luntatis indicat,’ Est.), nor on the other, 
that He ‘was willing,’ Hammond, but 
simply and plainly ‘it was God’s will’ 


Cuap. I. 27. 


COLOSSIANS. 


151 


S. ral a , fal fe 7 b] A 5) 4 
TO TAOVTOS THS So&NS TOD PuoTnpiov TovtTou ev Tois ESvecw, Os 


to do so. On the distinction between 
SéAw and BovrAoum, see notes on 1 Tim. 
v. 14. yvowploat| ‘to make 
known ;’ practically little different from 
gpavep@ou. ‘The latter perhaps is slight- 
ly more restricted, as involving the idea 
of a previous concealment (see above 
and compare 2 Tim. i. 10), the former 
more general and unlimited: see Meyer 
in loc. ti td wAOUTOS 
«. T.A.| ‘ what is the riches of the glory of 
this mystery :’ not, exactly, ‘ how great,’ 
Mey., but with the simple force of tis, — 
“what, referring alike to nature and de- 
gree; compare Eph. i. 18, and see notes 
in loc. The gen. ris ddéns is no mere 
genitive of quality which may be re- 
solved into an adjective, and appended 
either to mAodrTos (‘ herrliche Reichthum,’ 
Luth.) or to puornpioy (‘ gloriosi hujus 
mysterii,’ Beza), but, as always in these 
kinds of accumulated genitives in St. 
Paul, specially denotes that peculiar at- 
tribute of the wvorhpioy (gen. subjecti) 
which more particularly evinces the 
mAodros ; see notes and reff. on Eph. i. 6, 
and compare Eph.i.18. The ddéa itself 
is not to be limited to the transforming 
nature of the mystery of the Gospel, in 
its effects on men (1a Wray fnudroy Kad 
mictews udvns, Chrys.), nor yet, on the 
objective side, to the dda tod cod, the 
grace, glory, and attributes of God which 
are revealed by it, —but, as the weight 
of the enunciation requires, to both (see 
especially De W.), perhaps more par- 
ticularly to the latter. To make its ref- 
erence identical with that of the ddéa 
below (Mey., Alf.), where the preceding 
words introduce a new shade of thought, 
does not seem so exegetically satisfacto- 
ry. The former dééa gains from its col- 
location a more general and abstract 
force ; the latter, from its association 
‘with éAmfs, has a more specific reference. 
év tots @Svearv] ‘among the Gen- 


tiles ;? semilocal clause appended to ri 


(€or) 7d mAodTOS Kk. T. A., defining the 
sphere in which the mAodros rijs déé. 
Tov wvot. is more especially evinced ; 
gaiverau 8& év Erépois, TOAAG Se TA€ov ev 
ToUTOLS 7 MOAAH TOD pvornplov dédéa, 
Chrys. ; see especially Eph. i. 18, where 
the construction is exactly similar. 

és €ottv Xp.| The reading is here 
somewhat doubtful; os is found in CD 
EKL; nearly all mss. ; Chrys., Theod. 
(Tisch., Rec.), and, as being the more 
difficult reading, is to be preferred to 4, 
adopted by Lachm. with ABFG; 17. 
67**, and perhaps Vulg., al. But to 
what does it refer? Three interpreta- 
tions have been suggested : (a) the com- 
plex idea of the entire clause, — Christ 
in his relation to the Gentile world, De 
Wette, Eadie; (b) the more remote 7d 
mAovTos k. 7. A., Gicum., Daven., Mey. ; 
(c) the more immediately preceding pvo- 
tnpiov Tovrov, Chrys., Alf., al. Of these 
(a) is defensible (comp. Phil. i. 28), but 
too vague; (b) is plausible (compare 
Eph. iii. 8), but rests mainly on the as- 
sumption that wAovros is the leading 
word (Mey., Winer), whereas it seems 
clear from ver. 26, that puornp. is the 
really important word in the sentence. 
We retain then the usual reference to 
puotnptov ; Christ who was preached, 
and was working by grace among them, 
was in Himself the true and real mystery 
of redemption; compare notes on ph. 
iii. 5. In any case the masc. ds results 
from a simple attraction to the predicate ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. 

év tpmtv] ‘among you;’ not exclusive- 
ly ‘in vobis inhabitans per fidem,’ Zanch. 
(compare Eph. iii. 17), but in parallel- 
ism to the preceding év rots ev, As, 


however, this parallelism is not perfectly 


exact (Alf.),—for év duty is in close as- 
sociation with the preceding substantive, 
whereas éy Tots éSveowv is not, — we may 


152 


a \ rn / 
eotw Xpioros ev byiv, 1) edmis tis Oo&ys 
nr \ 
Nopev, vouSeTodvTes TavTa aVSpwrov Kat 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. I. 28. 


8 Ov jyucts KaTaryryén- 
OLvodoKovTes TaVTA d= 


Spwrov év macn copia, wa Tapacticopey Tavta avSpwmov 


admit that ‘in you’ is also virtually and 
by consequence involved in the present 
use of the preposition ; compare Olsh., 
Eadie. The connection adopted by Syr. 


4 

pou rey [qui in vobis est spes] 
involves an unnecessary and untenable 
trajection. h €Amls Tis 
ddéns]| ‘the hope of glory ;’ apposition 
to the preceding Xpiorbs ev duty; not 
either the ‘spei causa’ (Grot.), or the 
object of it (Vorst), but its very element 
and substance ; see 1 Tim.i.1, and notes 
in loc. The second gloss of Theoph, 7 
éAms quay edotos, is unusually incor- 
rect; ddfa is a pure substantive, and re- 
fers to the future glory and blessedness 
in heaven, Rom. v. 2, 1 Corin. ii. 7 (ap- 
parently), 2 Cor. iv. 17, al. For a list 
of the various words with which éAmts is 
thus joined, see Reuss, Z’heél. Chrét. 1v. 
20, Vol. 11. p. 221. 

28. bv Ruets Katayy.| ‘whomwe 
preach ;? whom I and Timothy, with 
other like-minded teachers (comp. Stei- 
ger), do solemnly preach; the jets be- 
ing emphatic, and instituting a contrast 
between the accredited and the non-ac- 
credited preachers of the Gospel. On 
the intensive, surely not local (dvwSev 
aitoyv pépovres, Chrys.) force of karwyy., 
see notes on Phil. i. 17. 
voudetovyres| ‘admonishing,’ ‘ warn- 
ing, ‘corripientes,’ Vulg., ith. ; parti- 
cipial clause defining more nearly the 
manner or accompaniments of the raray- 
yeAta. The verb vouserety has its proper 
force and meaning of ‘ admonishing with 
blame’ (vouSerixo) Adyor, Xenoph. Mem. 
I. 2. 21, compare notes on Eph. vi. 4), 
and, as Meyer (compare De W.) rightly 
observes, points to the peravoeire of the 
evangelical message, while d:ddox. lays 


the foundation for the micredere; sO, in- 
ferentially, Theophyl., vouSecta wey ém 
Tis mpdkews, SidacKaAla de em) Soyudrov. 
On the meaning of vovSereiv, which im- 
plies, primarily, correction by word, an 
appeal to the vods (compare 1 Sam. iii. 
12), and derivatively, correction by act, 
Judges viii. 16 (compare Plato, Leg. 1x. 
p- 879), see Trench, Synon. § 32. 

wdvta &vap.| Thrice repeated and 
emphatic ; apparently not without allu- 
sion to the exclusiveness and Judaistic 
bias of the false teachers at Colosse. 
The message was universal; it was ad- 
dressed to every one, whether in every 
case it might be received or no: tf Aé 
yeis; wdavta avSpwrov; vat, pynol, TodTo 
omovdd(ouey. ef O€ wy yevnTas ovdey mpds 
nas, Theoph. év Tao 
copta| ‘in all, i.e. in every form of, 
wisdom ;’ see notes on Eph. i. 8: mode 
in which the diddécKew was carried out, 
peta mdons copias, Chrys. (compare ch. 
iii. 16), or perhaps, more precisely, the 
characteristic element in which the 8:5a- 
x was always to be, and to which it 
was to be circumscribed. The meaning 
is thus really the same, but the manner 
in which it is expressed slightly differ- 
ent. The lines of demarcation between 
sphere of action (Eph. iv. 17), accordance 
with (Xphes. iv. 16), and characterizing 
feature (Eph. vi. 2), all more or less in- 
volving some notion of modality, are not 
always distinctly recognizable. The in- 
fluence of the Aramaic & in the various 
usages of éy in the N. T. is by no means 
inconsiderable. tva wapa- 
otnaowpmer] ‘in order that we may pre- 
sent,’ exactly as in ver. 22, with implied 
reference, not to a sacrifice, but to the 
final appearance of every man before 
God: ‘en metam et scopum Pauli, atque 


Cuap. I. 29. 


COLOSSIANS. 


153 


b > x A. 99 > a \ ca) > / x \ 
TEhELoy Ev APLOTO els 0 Kat KOTTLd aywuviGopmevos KATA TIV 


évépyevay avTov THY evepyoumevny ev ewol ev Suvapet. 


adeo omnium yerbi ministrorum, Dave- 
nant, — whose remarks on the propriety 
of the intention, —as coming from one 
who sat at the Council of Dort, —are 
not undeserving of perusal. The con- 
cluding words éy Xp., as usual, define 
the sphere in which the teAesétns, ‘l’en- 
semble de toutes les qualités naturelles 
au Chrétien’ (Reuss, Theol. Chrét. Vol. 
II. p. 182), is to consist; compare notes 
on ch, iv. 12, and on Eph. iv. 13. The 
polemical antithesis which Chrys. here 
finds, ovK ev vou ovdé év ayyéAols, owing 
to the continual recurrence of év Xp., is 
perhaps more tnan doubtful. The addi- 
tion of *Incod is rightly rejected by Tisch. 
with ABCD'FG; mss.; Claromanus ; 
Clem., and Lat. Ff. 

29. eis 8] ‘to which end;’ the prep. 
with its usual and proper force denoting 
the object contemplated in the xomév ; 
compare notes on Gal. ii. 8. 
kat koma] ‘I also toil;’ ‘ beside 
preaching with vovSecta and d:dax4, I 
also sustain every form of kémos (2 Cor. 
vi. 5) in the cause of the Gospel,’ the 
xa} contrasting (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) 
the som with the previous karayy. 
«x. tT. A. The relapse into the first per- 
son has an individualizing force, and 
carries on the reader from the general 
and common labors of preaching the 
Gospel (dv juets Karayy.), to the strug- 
gles of the individual preacher. On the 
meaning and derivation of komié, see 
notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 
aywviCdmevos] ‘striving ;’ compare 
chap. iv. 12, 1 Tim. iv. 10 (Lachm., —a 
doubtful reading, vi. 12), 2 Tim. iv. 7, 
and in a more special sense, 1 Cor. ix. 
25. It is doubtful whether this is to be 
referred to an outward, or an inward 
ayév. ‘The former is adopted by Chrys., 
Theoph., Davanant, al.; the latter by 


? 


Steig., Olsh., and most modern com- 
mentators. The use of kom (see on 
Tim. l. c.) perhaps may seem to point to 
the older interpretation ; the immediate 
context (ch. ii. 1), however, and the use 
of aywviCouc in this Ep. (see ch. iy. 12, 
aywricduevos bmep tua ev Tais mpocev- 
xats) seem here rather more in favor of 
modern exegesis, unless indeed with 
Cicum. and De Wette we may not im- 
probably admit both. 

Kata Thy évepy.| ‘according to His 
working which worketh in me ;’ measure 
of the apostle’s spiritual «dos (compare 
notes on Eph. i. 19), viz. not his own 
évepyera but, as the context seems to 
suggest, that of Christ; roy avrod Kdmov 
kal ayava TH Xplore avartiSels, Gicum., 
who alone of the Greek commentators 
(Theod. silet) expressly refers the adrod 
to Christ, the others apparently referring 
it to 6 @eds. On the construction of the 
verb évepy., see notes on Gal. ii. 8, v. 6, 
and on its meaning, notes on Phil. ii. 18. 
The passive interpretation ‘ que agitur, 
exercetur, perficitur’ (Bull, Hxam. Cens. 
11. 3), though lexically defensible, seems 
certainly at variance with St. Paul’s reg- 
ular use of the verb; see on Phil. 1. c. 
év Suvdmet| ‘in power, i. e. power- 
fully ; modal adjunct to evepyoupévny. 
Though it seems arbitrary to restrict 
dvvayis to miraculous gifts (Michael.), it 
still seems equally so (with Meyer and 
Alf.) summarily to exclude it; compare 
Gal. iii. 5. The principal reference, as 
the singular suggests (contrast Rom. i. 
4 and Acts ii. 22), seems certainly to in- 
ward operations ; a secondary reference 
to outward manifestations of power 
seems, however, fairly admissible ; ‘quum 
res postulat, etiam miraculis,’ Calvin, 
compare Olsh. zn loc. 


154 


I am earnestly striving for 
you, that you may come to 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 1. 


II. O2\o yap tpas eldévat jAlkov ayava 


the full knowledge of' Christ. Let no one deceive you, but as you received Christ, walk in Him, 


Cuarrer II. 1. ydp| Description of 
the nature and objects of the struggle 
previously alluded to, introduced by the 


nm 
yap argumentative (not transitional, <=? 
Syr. [probably not a different reading, 
see Schaaf, Lex. s. v.], and partially even 
Alf.), which confirms and illustrates, — 
not merely the foregoing word dyw(d- 
pevos (Beng.), but the whole current of 
the verse: ‘meminerat in calce superio- 
ris capitis suorum lJaborum et certami- 
num, corum nune causam et materiam 
explicat,’ Just. 
&yava| ‘how great a struggle;’ not 
‘solicitudinem,’ Vulg., but ‘ certamen,’ 


NAtKOV 


o> 

Clarom., Bot, Syr., ‘quantum col- 
luctor,’ th. The struggle, as the cir- 
cumstances of the apostle’s captivity 
suggest, was primarily inward, —‘ in- 
tense and painful anxiety,’ Eadie (com- 
pare ch. iv. 12), yet not perhaps wholly 
without reference to the outward suffer- 
ings which he was enduring for them 
(ch. i. 24), and for all his converts. 
The qualitative adj. 7Atkos (Hesychius 
motamds, wéyas, dmotos; compare Don- 
aldson, Cratyl. § 254), occurs only here 
and James iii. 5. meph 
iua@v] ‘for you.’ The reading is some- 
what doubtful. Zachm. reads srép with 
ABCD?; 6 mss.; but as this might ea- 
sily have come from ch. iy. 12 (compare 
ch. i. 24), it seems best with Tisch. to 
retain epi, which is found in D'!D3EFG 
KL, and the great majority of mss. : 
these prepositions are often interchanged. 
On the distinction between them, see on 
Gal. i. 4, and on Phil. i. 7. 

kat t@v év Aaod.| The Christians in 
the neighboring city of Laodicea are men- 
tioned with them, as possibly subjected 
to the same evil influences of heretical 
teaching. The rich (Rev. iii. 17), com- 


mercial (compare Cicero, Lpist. Fam. 
111. 5), city of Laodicea, formerly called 
Diospolis, afterwards Rhoas, and subse- 
quently Laodicea, in honor of Laodice, 
wife of Antiochus II., was situated on 
the river Lycus, about eighteen English 
miles to the west of Coloss, and about 
six miles south of Hierapolis, which lat- 
ter city is not improbably hinted at in, 
kal doo. kK. T. A. ; see Wieseler, Chronol. 
p- 441 note. Close upon the probable 
date of this Epistle (4. p. 61 or 62), the 
city suffered severely from an earth- 
quake, but was restored without any as- 
sistance from Rome; Tacit. Ann. xtv. 
27, compare Strabo, Geogr. x11. 8. 16 
(ed. Kramer) : a place bearing the name 
of Eski-hissar is supposed to mark the 
site of this once important city. For 
further notices of Laodicea see Winer, 
RWB. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 5, Pauly, Real- 
Encycl. Vol. tv. 1, p. 764, and Arundell, 
Seven Churches, p. 84 sq., ib. Asia Minor, 
Vol. 11. p. 180 sq. kal dooe 
k. 7. A.] ‘and (in a word) as many as, 
etc.;’ the nat probably annexing the 
general to the special (compare Matth. 
xxvi. 59, notes on Eph. i. 21, Phil. iv. 
12, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388), and 
including, with perhaps a thought of Hi- 
erapolis (see above), all in those parts 
who had not seen the apostle. The or- 
dinary principles of grammatical perspi- 
cuity seem distinctly to imply that the 
iuets and the of év Aaod. belong to the 
general class kal doo: x. 7. A., and con- 
sequently that the Colossians were not 
personally acquainted with the apostle. 
Recent attempts have been made either 
to refer the 600: to a third and different 
set of persons to the Colossians and La- 
odiceans (Schulz. Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 
538 ; so Theodoret and a schol. in Mat- 
thei, p. 168), or to a portion only of 
those two Churches (Wiggers, Stud. u. 


OnAp, Il, 2: 


COLOSSIANS. 


155 


” \ c fal \ lal b] fe \ v4 3 Cue A 
EX@ TEpl UL@V KAL TMV EV Aaodixeia, Kat OGOot oux EWPAaKav TO 


, r 2 Ley ies fal € X 2A 
T pOoWTrov OU €V oapKl, tva TapakrkynS @ow at Kapoiat QAUT@V 


oupBiBaoNevtes ev ayaTyn Kab eis Tay TO TAOVTOS THS TAnpodo- 


Krit. 1838, p. 176), but as all the words 
are, in fact, under the vinculum of a 
common preposition, and as avréay, if 
dissociated from tua@v Kal Trav év Aaod. 
(comp. Schulz), would leave the men- 
tion of these two former classes most 
aimless and unnatural, we seem justified 
in concluding with nearly all modern 
editors that the Colossians and.those of 
Laodicea had not seen the apostle in the 
flesh; see the good note of Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 440 sq., and Neander, Plant- 
ing, Vol. I. p. 171 (Bohn). The 
form éépaxay adopted by Lachm., Tisch. 
[with ABC (éop.) D1], is decidedly Alex- 
andrian (see Winer, Gr. § 13. 2, p. 71), 
and probably the true reading. The 
‘sonstige Gebrauch Pauli’ urged against 
it by Meyer is imaginary, as the third 
person plur. does not elsewhere occur in 
St. Paul’s Epistles. év 
capk) seems naturally connected with 
the preceding mpdowmdy pov ( Vulg., Cop- 
tic, ZEth.), not with édpaxay (Syr., but 
not Philox., where the order is changed), 
forming with it one single idea. There 
is almost obviously here no implied an- 
tithesis to mveduats (Seixvvow evtaidsa 
br. Edpwv ocuvex@s ev mv., Chrys., The- 
oph., compare ver. 5): the bodily coun- 
tenance is not in opposition with ‘the 
spiritual physiognomy,’ Olsh., but seems 
a concrete touch added to enhance the 
nature of his struggle; it was not for 
those whom he personally knew and who 
personally knew him, but for those for 
whom his interest was purely spiritual 
and ministerial. 

2. tva wmapaka.| ‘in order that their 
hearts may be comforted ;’ not ‘may be 
strengthened,’ ‘inveniant robur,’ Copt. 
literally, but ? if the derivative meaning 
‘consol. accipere’ is not the most com- 
mon, é. g. Psalm exix. 52], De W., Alf., 


al., — but ‘consolentur’ (consolationem 


> Sek AN 
accipiant), Vulg., omodd [consol. 


accipiant], Syr., ‘gaudeant,’? Aith., — 
the fuller meaning which, in passages of 
this nature, mapax. always appears to 
bear in St. Paul’s Epistles, and from 
which there does not here seem sufficient 
reason to depart (contr. Bisp., Alford) : 
surely those exposed to the sad trial of 
erroneous teachings needed consolation ; 
compare Davenant zm loc. For exam- 
ple of wapaxaA. compare ch. iv. 8, Eph. 
vi. 22, and even 2 Thess. ii. 17, where 
the associated ornpitat is not a repetition, 
but an amplification, of the preceding 
mapakahéoat. The final va is obviously 
dependent on a@yava éxw (comp. Chrys. 
ay. €xw: iva tt yévnrat), and introduces 
the aim of the struggle, — the consolation 
and spiritual union of those believers 
previously mentioned who had not seen 
the apostle in the flesh. 

gumBiBacdsévtes ev ay‘ they be- 
ing knit together in love:’ relapse to the 
logical subject by the common particip- 
ial anacoluthon (Eph. iv. 2; see notes 
on Eph. i. 18, and on Phil. i. 30), the 
participle having its modal force, and 
defining the manner whereby, and cir- 
cumstances under which, the mapdékAnots 
was to take place; see Madvig, Synt. 
§ 176. b. The verb cuuzfiB. has not here 
its derivative sense, ‘instructi,’ Vulg., 
Copt., but its primary meaning of aggre- 
gation, ‘ knit together,’ Auth. (comp. Syr. 


> Vin OS 
oop [accedant], Aith., ‘ confir- 


metur’), as in ch. ii. 19, and Eph. iv. 16, 
where see notes. The reading -évTwv 
(Rec., with D®E?KL ; al.) seems certain- 
ly only a grammatical emendation. 

Ev aydrn, with the usual meaning of 
the preposition, denotes not the instru- 


156 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuapr. II. 2. 


f > n a) a fa) 
plas Ths cvvéceas, els érriyvwow Tod pvotnpiov Tod Ocod Xprorod, 


ment (‘per caritatem,’ Est.), but the 
sphere and element in which they were 
to be knit together, and is associated by 
means of the copulative xa) (not ‘ etiam,’ 
Beng.) with eis wav «. 7. A. which defines 
the object of the union ; see next note. 
eis Tav Td TAODTOS| ‘unto all the 
richness; ’ prepositional member defining 
the object and purpose contemplated in the 
cvpBiBacis, and closely connected with 
the preceding definition of the ethical 
sphere of the action; deep insight into 
the mystery of God is the object of the 
union in love. The connection with ma- 
pakAn®, (Baumg.-Crus.) mars the union 
of the prepositional members, and gains 
nothing in exegesis. 
mAovrov, though fairly supported (Lec. 
with DEKL), seems clearly to have had 
a paradiplomatic origin (see Pref. to Gal. 
p- Xvi), the ra being a clerical error 
for TO, and wAodroy a corresponding 
eorrection. On this neuter form, see 
notes on Eph. i. 7. 

THs wAnpohpoplas. Tis auvvés.| 
“of the full assurance of the understand: 
ing ;’ not ‘ certo persuase intelligentiz,’ 
Davenant, a resolution of the gen. which 
is wholly unnecessary: compare notes 
on ch.i.27. The word rAnpod. (1 Thess. 
i. 5, Heb. vi. 11, x. 22) denotes on the 
qualitative side (mAodr., quantitative, 
De W.) the completeness of the persua- 
sion which was to be associated with the 
odveots, — which the ctveo.s was to have 
and to involve (gen. possess.), — and, as 
Olsh. observes, may denote that the ov- 
veois was not to be merely outward, de- 
pendent on the intellect, but inward, rest- 
ing on the testimony of the Spirit ; com- 
pare Clem.-Rom. 1. Cor. § 42. On the 
meaning of ovveois, see notes on ch. i. 
9: that it is here Christian ctveots, clear- 
‘ly results from the context (Mey.). 

eis érlyvwotv K.7.A.] ‘unto the full 
knowledge of the mystery of God, even 


The reading ravra 


Christ ;’ prepositional member exactly 
parallel to the preceding «is wav Td mA. 
k.7T.A. The construction of the last 
three words is somewhat doubtful. Three 
connections present themselves ; (a) ‘ the 
mystery of the God of Christ,’ Huth., Mey., 
Xpicrod being the possessive gen. of re- 
lationship, etc. ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 
7, p. 123 sq., and comp. Eph. i. 17, an@ 
notes in loc.; (B) ‘the mystery of God, 
even of Christ, Xp. being a gen. in sim- 
ple apposition to, and more exactly de- 
fining @eod; so in effect, Hil., ‘Deus 
Christus sacramentum est;’ (y) ‘the 
mystery of God, even Christ:’ Xp. being 
in apposition, not to cov, but to wuary- 
plov, and so forming a very close paral- 
lel toch. i. 27. Of these (a) seems hope- 
lessly hard and artificial; (8) though 
dogmatically true, seems here an unne- 
cessary specification, and exegetically 
considered, much inferior to (y), which 
stands in harmony with the preceding 
expression pvornplov bs éort Xpiotds (ch 
i. 27), and has the indirect support of 
D1, Clarom., Aug., Vig., and Aith., za- 
baenta Chrestos [quod de Christo]. It 
seems singular that these words have 
not given rise to more discussion (South 
has a doctrinal sermon on the text, Vol. 
II. p. 174 sq., but does not notice the 
readings), for (8), though in point of 
collocation somewhat doubtful, seems 
still, considered apart from the context, 
not indefensible, and at any rate is not 
to be disposed of by Meyer’s summary 
‘entbehrt aller Paulinischen analogie’ 
We adopt (y), however, on what seem 
decided exegetical grounds. On 
the meaning and applications of pyerh- 
ptov, see notes on Ephes, v. 32, Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 89; and 
for the exact force of émlyvwors (‘ accu- 
rata cognitio ’) bere apparently confirmed 
by the juxtaposition of the simple yraots, 
ver. 3, see notes on Eph. i. 17. 


Cuap. II. 3. COLOSSIANS. 


157 


’ 


3 b & \ af. e SS t a pt \ n , 
eV @ ELOLWW TTAVTES Ob Hoadvupol THS Gopias Kab TIS YYMCEWS 


2. Tod @cod Xgicr0d] This passage deserves our attentive consideration. The 
reading of the text is that of B, Hil. (Lach., Tisch. ed. 1, Mey., Huth., Wordsw.), 

and has every appearance of being the original reading, and that from which the 
many perplexing variations have arisen. The other principal readings are (a) rod 
@cod, with cursive mss. 37. 67**. 71. 80*. 116 (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. 2, 7), fol- 
lowed by Olsh., De W., Alf., and the majority of modern commentators: (b) rod 
@cod 6 évtiy Xpiords, with D1; Clarom. (/ith., quod de Christo): (c) rod @e0d ma- 
Tpds Tod Xpiorod with AC; al.; Vv.; and lastly, (d) rod Ocod nad matpds.Kal rod 
Xp. with D3EKL; many mss. and Vv.; Theod., Dam., al. (Rec.). Now of these 
(a) is undoubtedly too weakly supported ; (b) seems very like a gloss of the as- 
sumed true reading rod @cod Xp. ; (c) and (d) still more expanded or explanatory 
readings. As all four may be so simply derived from the text, (a) by omission, the 
rest by gloss and expansion, we adopt, with considerable confidence, the reading of 


Lachm., and we believe also, of Tregelles. 


3. év &| ‘in whom,’ relative sentence 
explaining the predication involved in 
the preceding apposition (uvornp. = 
Xpiorod), the relative having its exp/ana- 
tory force; see notes on ch.i. 25. To 
follow the reading of the text, and yet 
to refer év @ to the uvorhpiov (Mey.), 
seems unusually perplexed, unless (with 
Mey.) we adopt the unsatisfactory con- 
struction (a), previously discussed. De 
Wette and Mey. urge the implied an- 
tithesis between wvor. and améxp., but to 
this it may be said, — first, that what is 
applicable to uvor. is equally so to that 
to which it is equivalent (comp. Bisp.) ; 
secondly, that the secondary predicate 
arékpupor (see below) logically eluci- 
dates the equivalence of Xpiotds with 
the pvorhpiov, but would seem otiose if 
only added to enhance the nature of the 
fvorhptoy or the éalyvwors thereof: com- 
pare Waterl. Christ’s Div. Serm. vit. 
Vol. 11. p. 156. 
k. 7. A.] ‘are all the treasures of wisdom 
and knowledge hidden ;’ not ‘the secret 
treasures, etc.,’ Meyer, Alf., which ob- 
scures the secondary predication of man- 
ner, and in fact confounds it with the 
usual ‘ attributive’ construction (Kriig., 
Sprachl. § 50. 8). The position of the 
substantive verb and the order of the 


> Ul 
elolvy wavTes 


words seem to show that dmréxpupa is 
not to be joined with cioly as a direct 
predication (Syr., Copt., De W., al.), 
but that it is subjoined to it ( Vulgate, 
kth.) as the predication of manner, and 
is in fact equivalent to an adverb, the 
most distinct type of the secondary pred- 
icate ; see especially Donaldson, Cratyl. 
§ 304, and comp. Miiller, Kleine Schrift. 
Vol. 1. p. 810 (Donalds.), who has the 
credit of first introducing this necessary 
distinction between ‘ adjectiva attributa, 
preedicata, and apposita ;’ see also Don- 
aldson, Gr. § 486-447. It will be seen 
that the translation of Meyer and Alf., 
and especially the explanations based 
upon it, are unsatisfactory from not hay- 
ing observed these important distine- 
tions. Exegetically consid- 
ered, the expression seems to convey 
that all treasures of wisdom and knowl- 
edge are in Christ, and are fiddenly so, 
‘quo verbo innuitur, quod pretiosum et 
magnificum est in Christo non -promi- 
nere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere 
hominum carnalium, sed ita latere ut 
conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus 
Deus oculos dedit aquilinos, id est, spir- 
ituales ad. vivendum,’ Dayenant; écre 
map’ ato Set mayta aiteiv, Chrysostom. 
There is thus no need with Bahr and 


158 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 4, 5. 


amokpugot. * Todto S& A€yo iva pydels buds Tapadoyitntar ev 
S DN Y Ley \ \ a Vara iAXKa A 7 
miyavoroyia. % el yap Kal TH capKl aTrEeyl, GNA THO TvevpaTs 


others to modify the simple meaning of 
the adjective. coolas 
kal yvéoews| The exact distinction 
between these words is not perhaps very 
easy to substantiate. We can hardly 
say that ‘ copfa res credendas, yvaats res 
agendas complectitur’ (Davenant), but 
rather the contrary. It would seem, as 
in copia and Ppdynors (see notes on Eph. 
i. 9), that copia is the more general, 
‘wisdom,’ in its completest sense, rowas 
ardytway pddnois, Suid., yvaous the more 
restricted and special, ‘knowledge,’ as 
contrasted with the results and applica- 
tions of it ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 139 (Bohn), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- 
chol. 1v. 7, p. 166, and, on the meaning 
of ‘wisdom,’ comp. Taylor (H.), Notes 
Srom Life, p. 95. 

4. rodTo SE A€yw] ‘ Now this I 
say ;’ transition, by means of the 5€ pe- 
tTaBatixoy (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 
165; omitted by Lachm. with A! (ap- 
parently), B; Ambrosiast.), to the warn- 
ings which, with some intermixture of 
exhortation and doctrinal statements, 
pervade the chapter. The rodro seems 
clearly to refer not merely to ver. 3, but 
to the whole introductory paragraph, 
ver. 1-3. maparoyt(nrat| 
“may deceive;’ only here and James i. 
22, though not uncommon in the LXX, 
e. g. Josh. ix. 22, 1 Sam. xii. 28, 2 Sam. 
xxi. 5,al. The verb rapadoy. is of com- 
mon occurrence in later Greek, and 
properly denotes ‘to deceive,’ either by 
false reckoning (Demosth. Aphob. 1. p. 
822), or false reasoning (Isocr. p. 420 
c), and thence generally, dmraray, wev- 
cacsat (Hesych.) ; comp. Arrian, Epict. 
II. 20, éawatGow suas nad mapadroyicor- 
rot, and examples in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 
II. p. 261, Loesn. Obs. p. 335. 
év misavoaAoyla] ‘with enticing 
speech ;’? compare 1 Cor. ii. 4, év mewors 


codias Adyos, the prep. év having that 
species of instrumental force in which 
the object is conceived as existing in the 
means ; comp. Jelf, Gr. § 622.3. The 
subst. occurs in Plato, Theat. p- 162 B, 
and the verb in Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1. 1, 
but with a more special and technical 
reference to probability as opposed to 
demonstration or to mathematical cer- 
tainty. 

5. ef yap kal «.7.A.] ‘forifLam 
absent verily in the flesh ;’ reason for the 
foregoing warning, founded on the fact 
of his spiritual presence with them; ef 
yap Kol TH capkl Gren, GAN Guws olda 
tous amate@vas, Chrys. The ral does 
not belong, strictly considered, to the ei 
(compare Raphel zn loc.), but to capKi, on 
which it throws a slight emphasis, con- 
trasting it with the following mveduati: 
see notes on Phil. ii. 17. The dative 
capr) is the dat. ‘ of reference,’ and, with 
the regular limiting power of that case, 
marks that to which the a@mrovota was re- 
stricted ; see notes on Gal. i. 22. 

&@AAd] ‘yet on the contrary,’ ‘ neverthe- 
less;’ the hypothetical protasis being 
followed by aad at the commencement 
of the apodosis ; see examples in Har- 
tung, Partik. dAad, 2. 8, Vol. 11 p. 40. 
In such cases, which are not uncommon, 
the add preserves its primary and proper 
force ; ‘ per istam particulam quasi tran- 
situs ad rem novam significatur que ei, 
quz membro orationis conditionali erat 
declarata, jam opponatur,’ Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 93. TO Tvev- 
att] ‘in the spirit;’ dative exactly 
similar to rH capkl. It need scarcely be 
said that this is St. Paul’s human spirit 
(Beck, Seelenl. 11. 11, p. 29 sq.), not 
any influence of the Holy Spirit, Pseud- 
Ambr. (compare Grot. ; Daven. unites 
both), which would here violate the ob- 
vious antithesis. The deduction of Wig- 


3 


Cuap. II. 5. 


COLOSSIANS. 


159 


\ © A bp er 2 s x , © a NS / w X , 
ovv wuiv cil, yalpwv Kat PrEéTrOV Uuov THY TaEW Kali TO oTEpEMpA 


gers (Stud. u. Arit. 1838, p. 181) from 
this passage and especially from the use 
of teu, that there had been a previous 
mapovoia with the Col. on the part of St. 
Paul, is rightly rejected by De Wette 
and Meyer: the verb itself simply im- 
plies absence without any reference to a 
previous presence ; the accessory thought 
is supplied by the context. Contrast the 
other instances in the N. T., 1 Cor. v.3, 
QCorexel, 1, xii2, 10) Phil, 1.27, in 
all of which mdpeyu is distinctly ex- 
pressed. 
you;’ ‘joined with you,’ in a true and 
close union; compare Gal. iii. 9, where 
see remarks on the difference between 
aby and pera: compare on Eph. vi. 23. 


avy omit] ‘with 


xalpwy nal BAéwwy k.7.A.] ‘re- 
Joicing (with you), and seeing your order ;’ 
modal and circumstantial clause defining 
the feelings with which he was present, 
and the accessory circumstances. There 
is some difficulty in the union of these 
two participles. After rejecting all un- 
tenable assumptions, of an éy da Svoty 
(‘ gaudeo dum video,’ Wolf), —a zeug- 
matic construction of the accusative with 
both verbs (‘mit Freuden sehend,’ De 
Wette), — a trajection (‘ seeing, ete.; and 
rejoicing,’ see Winer, Gram. § 54. 4, p. 
417 note), —a causal use of raf (‘ gau- 
dens quia cerno,’ Daven., compare Syr. 


mo 
{}s02), etc., we have three plausible in- 


terpretations, (a) ‘rejoicing, to wit, see- 
ing,’ ete., cad being used purely explica- 
tively, Olsh., Winer, 2, /. c.; (B) ‘re- 
Joicing (thereat), i. e. at heing with you 
in spirit, and seeing, etc.,’ the subject of 
the xaipew being deduced from the words 
immediately preceding, and the xa) be- 
ing simply copulative ; so Meyer, and 
after him Eadie and Alf. ; (y) ‘ rejoicing 
(about you) and seeing,’ ep suiv being 
suggested by the preceding oby buiv, Wi- 
ner 1, J.c., Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 425 


note. Of these (a) seems hard and arti- 
ficial; (8) imports a somewhat alien 
thought, for surely it was the state of the 
Colossians, rather than the being with 
them in spirit, that made the apostle re- 
joice; (y) preserves the practical con- 
nection of xaip. with the latter part of 
the sentence, but assumes an ellipse 
which the context does not very readily 
supply. It seems best then (5) so far to 
modify (y) as to assume a continuation 
of vy buiv; the modal xalpwy expressing 
the apostle’s general feeling of joyful 
sympathy (suggested by the state in which 
he found them), while the circumstantial 
Baérwy k.7.A. adds a more special, and, 
in fact, explanatory accessory : for this 
use of kal (special after general), comp. 
notes on Hph. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 12. 
tatty] ‘order,’ zt. e. ‘orderly state and 
conduct ;’? thy rdtw, Thy edtatiay pyot, 
Chrys.; specification of their state out- 
wardly considered in reference to church- 
fellowship, and to the attention and obe- 
dience of the good soldier of Christ: as 
yap em) mapardtews 4 edratia thy pddayya 
oTepedy Kadsiotnow otTw Kat ém) Tis éx- 
kAnolas, Stay evtatia H, THS aydans Tdv- 
Ta KadioTdons Kal wi) dvTwY TXLTMATwP, 
TéTe Kal Td oTepéwua yiverat, Theoph. 
The allusion may be to a well organized 
body politic (Meyer, Alford; compare 
Demosth. de Rhod. Lib. p. 200) or, per- 
haps more probably, in accordance with 
the apostle’s metaphors elsewhere (Eph. 
vi. 11 sq.) to military service ; see Wolf 
in loc. otepéwmal ‘solid 
Soundation,’ ‘ firm attitude,’ kaSdmep mpds 
OTPATLOTAS EVTAKTaS eoTaras Kai BeBalws, 
Chrys. ; specification of their state in- 
wardly considered : not ‘ firmitas,’ Syr., 
Eth. [both which languages have an- 
other word more exactly answering to 
the concrete], followed by Huther, De 
Wette, al., but, ‘fundamentum,’ Vulg., 
‘firmamentum,’ Copt.— there being no 


160 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 6, 7% 


Tis eis Xpictov Tictews buav. ° ‘Qs odv mapehdBere Tov Xpio- 
tov "Inoodv tov Kupiov, év ait@ Tepurrateite, * éppilwpévor Kat 


lexical ground for regarding the more 
concrete otepéwpua (‘effect of the verb as 
aconcretum, Buttm. Gr.§ 119.7; nearly 
= part. in -wevoy) as identical in mean- 
ing with the purely abstract o7repedrns. 
The word (an dz. Aeydu. in the N. T. ; 
compare 1 Pet. v. 9, Acts xvi. 5) occurs 
frequently in the LXX, and nearly al- 
ways in its proper sense, though occa- 
sionally showing the tendency of later 
Greek in a partial approximation to the 
verbal in -o1s ; comp. Esth.ix.29. The 
gen. may be a gen. of apposition (comp. 
notes on Eph. vi. 14), but seems more 
naturally a gen. subjecti referable to the 
general category of the possessive geni- 
tive. On the construction of mor. with 
eis, see notes on 1 Tim.i. 16, and Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. iv. 14, Vol. 11. p, 129. 
After these words we have no reason for 
doubting that the Church of Colosse, 
though tied by heretical teaching, was 
substantially sound in the faith. 

6. ds otv mapedAdBerTe| ‘ Asthen 
ye received :’ exhortation founded on the 
words of blended warning and encour- 
agement in the two preceding verses, otv 
having its common retrospective and col- 
lective force (‘ad ea que antea revera 
posita sunt lectorem revocat,’ Klotz), 
and thus answering better to ‘ then,’ 
Peile, than ‘ therefore,’ Alf.: see Klotz, 
Devar, Vol. 11. p. 717, compare Don- 
aldson, Gr. § 604. On ds see notes on 
Tit. i. 5. The mapeddBere can hardly 
be ‘from me,’ Alf. (see on ver. 1), but, 
from Epaphras (ch. i. 7) and your first 
teachers in Christianity. Though the 
reference seems mainly to reception by 
teaching (compare éd:ddxSnTe, ver. 7), 
the object is so emphatically specified, 
Tov Xp. Ino. tov Kup., as apparently to 
require a more inclusive meaning ; they 
received not merely the a&«hparoy didac- 
xaAlay (Theod.), the ‘doctrinam Christi’ 


(Daven.), but Christ Himself; in Him- 
self the sum and substance of all teach- 
ing (Olsh., Bisp.) ; compare Ephes. iv. 
20, and notes zn loc. Tov 
Kvpiov| ‘Tue Lorp;’ not without 
emphasis ; yet not so much as ‘ for your 
Lord,’ Alf., after Huth. and Mey.,—an 
interpretation which, independently of 
grammatical difficulties (Kdpiov 2 Cor. 
iv. 5, not tov Kup., see Middleton, Gr. 
Art. 111. 8.4), would make wapadaBeiv 
imply rather the recognition of a princi- 
ple of doctrine, than the spiritual recep-. 
tion of the personal Lord. The title, as 
both the position and article show, is 
plainly emphatic, —it marks Him as 
Lord of all, above all Principality and. 
Power (Eph. i. 20), the Creator of men 
and angels (Col. i. 16), but cannot be 
safely regarded as forming a tertiary 
predication; compare Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 305. év avT@ 
mepimarette] ‘walk in Him,’ as the 
sphere and element of your Christian 
course. Christ is not here represented 
as an 606s (4 mpoodyovca eis Thy Matépa, 
Chrys.), but as an ensphering ‘ Lebens- 
Element’ (Mey.), to which the zepira- 
rev, t. é. life and all its principles and 
developments, was to be circumscribed ; 
compare Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i. 20. For 
a practical sermon on this text, see Fa- 
rindon, Sermon xxx11. Vol. 11. p. 165 
(Lond. 1849). 

7. €pprCwpéevor kal érorKodo- 
movmevot| ‘having been rooted and be- 
ing built up in Him;’ modal definitions 
appended to the preceding mepirarety ; 
the first under the image of a root-fast 
tree (hence the perf. part.), the second 
under that of a continually uprising 
building (hence the pres. part.) marking 
the stable growth and organic solidity of 
those who truly walk in Christ. The ev 
av7@ is attached to both: Christ, as Mey. 


Caap: II. 7, 8 COLOSSIANS. 161 


Lé Souodmevos 2 UT@, Kal BeBasod Maat Sa 
Kal érrorKodopovpevot ev AUTO, Ka pevot TH TiaTes KAS@S 
> / rs > > a > / 
eOLvdaY STE, TEplacEvoVTES EV AUTH EV EvXApLOTIA. 


7. év avr] So Rec., Lachm., and now Tisch. (ed. 7) with BD°EKL; great mass 
of mss.; Vulg. (Clarom., ‘in illo,’ as also D!; mss.; and perhaps some Vy., the 
inflexions of which often leave it uncertain whether év adtf or év ad’r@ was in the 
original) ; Chrys., Theod , al., and Lat. Ff. The two words were omitted by Tisch. 
(ed. 2) with AC; 15 mss. ; Am. Tol. (certainly not Copt., as Tisch., Alf.) ; Ar- 
chel., al., — but are now rightly restored. The authority for their omission seems 
clearly insufficient, especially when such an omission might so easily have been 


suggested by the difficulty of the construction. 


observes, is both the ground im which the 
root is held (Eph. iii. 17), and the solid 
foundation on which (1 Cor. iii. 11) the 
building is raised, — the prep. ev (not em 
avTg, Eph. ii. 20) being studiously con- 
tinued to enhance the idea évy Xpiorp 
that pervades the passage; comp. Eph. 
li. 21, 22. The accessory idea of the 
foundation is admirably conveyed by the 
émt in the compound verb; comp. 1 Cor. 
iii. 12, Eph. ii. 20. Ina passage of such 
force and perspicuity we need not pause 
on the slight mixture or discordance of 
metaphors ; it would be difficult indeed 
to imagine such fruitful and suggestive 
thoughts conveyed in so few words. 

kal BeBatotmp TH wiore| ‘and 
being stablished in your faith ;’ the idea 
(rd BéBauov) involved in the preceding 
participles being still more clearly 
brought out, — and, as the nature of the 
case requires, in the present tense. The 
‘dat. 7H miore: is not the instrumental 
dat. (Mey.), but the dat. ‘of reference 
_to’ (De Wette), faith being naturally 
regarded as the principle which needed 
BeBatwo.y, and to which it might most 
appropriately be restricted : see notes on 
Gal. i. 22. The prep. év is inserted be- 
fore miore: in Rec. [with ACD°EKL], 
but is apparently rightly rejected by 
Lachm. and Tisch., though only with 
BD!; 4 mss.; Vulg.,—the probability 
of an insertion being very great. 
kadmws €51ddx9.| ‘even as ye were 
taught ;’ scil. to become firmly estab- 


lished in faith: this they might have 
been taught by Epayhras (ch. i. 7) or 
by some of their early instructors. 

meptoc. évy avTH K.T.A.| ‘ abound- 
ing in it with thanksgiving :’ participial 
clause subordinate to BeBaiodu., main- 
ly reiterating with a quantitative, what 
had been previously expressed with a 
qualitative reference. Of the two pre- 
positional adjuncts, the first ev atrT7 
is united closely with mepioc., specify- 
ing the element and item in which the 
increase takes place (equivalent to abun- 
dare with an abl.; see notes on Phil. i. 
9), the second as the field of operation 
in which (Alf.), or perhaps rather the 
accompaniment with which (cby edxap., 
Cicum.), the mepioo. ev mioTre was asso- 
ciated and, as it were, environed ; com- 
pare Luke xiv. 31, Ephes. vi. 16, 1 Cor. 
iv. 21, in which the gradual transition 
from the more distinct idea of environ- 
ment to the less defined idea of accompa-, 
niment may be easily traced ; see Green, 
Gr. p. 289, and notes on ch, iv. 2. 

8. BAéwere ph tis x.7.A.] ‘ Take 
heed lest there shall be any one that maketh 
you his booty,’ — you as well as the.others 
that have been led away; spas, as the 
order suggests, being slightly emphatic : 
see critical note. The cautionary im- 
per. BAémere is found in at least six com- 
binations in the N. T.; (a) with a sim- 
ple accus., Mark iv. 24, Phil. iii. 2; (0) 
with dd and a gen., Mark viii. 15, xii. 
38; (c) with m@s and the indic., Luke 


21 


COLOSSIANS. 


162 Cuap. II. 8. 


Let not worldly wisdom 
lead you away from Him 
who is the Head of all, who 
has quickened you, and for- 
given you, and triumphed over all the powers of evil. 


8 Brérrere pun Tis buas Eotat 6 cvAaywyov 
\ rn = 4 \ n b] FA \ \ 
Sua THs pirocodias Kal Kevis amatns KaTa THY 


8. buas €ora| It is curious that apparently no critical editor except Wetst. (and 
recently Zisch. ed. 7) has noticed the doubtful order of these two words. Tischener 
(ed. 2) silently adopted Zora tuas with ACDE (Lachmann), but has now (ed. 7) 
rightly reversed the position of the words. The order of the text is that of BKL; 
all mss. ; Chr., Theod., al., —and is apparently to be preferred as the less obvious 


order ; so Rec. and Scholz. 


vili. 18, 1 Cor. iii. 10; (d) with fva and 
the subj., 1 Cor. xvi. 10; (e) with w) and 
the subjunctive, —the prevailing con- 
struction, Matth. xxiv. 4, Gal. v.15, al.; 
(f) with »} and the future, only here 
and Heb. iii. 12. The last construction 
is adopted in the present case as imply- 
ing the fear that the case contemplated 
will really occur, ‘ne futurus sit qui,’ 
etc. ; see Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p. 446, 
Hartung, Partik. ph, 5. 6, Vol. 11. p. 
140, and compare Herm. Soph. Lect. 
992. Numerous examples of i in dif- 
ferent constructions after dpa x. T. A. 
will be found in Gayler, Partik. Neg. p. 
316 sq. TvAaywyor] 
‘ bearing away as a booty ;’ an am. Aeydu. 
in the N. T., found only in later Greek, 
both directly with an accus. persone, e. g. 
map%évov, Heliod. 47th. x. 35, and, in a 
more derivative sense, with an accus. 
rei, e.g. olkoy, Aristen. Ep. 11. 22. 
There seems no reason for diluting judas 
(cvAaywyav tov voov, Theoph.) or adopt- 
ing the weaker force of the verb (amoov- 
Adv thy tlorw, Theod.) : the false teach- 
ers sought to lead them away captive, 
body and mind ; the former by ritualis- 
tic restrictions (verse 16), the latter by 
heretical teaching (verse 18). On the 
use of the art. after the indef. tis, see 
notes on Gal. i. 7. dia Tihs 
ptroa. x. 7.A.] ‘by means of philoso- 
phy and vain deceit,’ i. e. a philosophy 
that is essentially and intrinsically so, 
the absence of both prep. and article be- 
fore xevijs amdrns showing that it belongs 
to the same category as the foregoing 


PiAogodia, and forms with it a joint idea ; 
éretdy SuKet ceuvdv elvar Td THS PiAogo- 
glas mpooésnke, Kat Kevajs am., Chrys. : 
see Winer, Gram. § 19. 4, p.116. Such 
idocopia was but a Kev amdrn, an 
empty, puffed-out |comp. Benfey, Wur- 
zellex. Vol. 11. p. 165] system of deceit 
and error ; compare Eph. v. 6. The 
term giAogopla in this passage has been 
abundantly discussed. ‘There seems no 
sufficient reason for referring it, on the 
one hand, to Grecian philosophy, wheth- 
er Epicurean (Clem.-Alex. Strom. 1. 11 
(50), Vol. 1. p. 346, ed. Pott.), Stoic 
and Platonic (Tertull. Preser § 7), or 
Pythagorean (Grot.), or on the other, to 
the ‘ religio Judaica’ (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
II. p. 322; so Loesner and Krebs), — 
but, as the associated terms and the 
general contrast seem to suggest, to that 
hybrid theosophy of Jewish birth and 
Oriental affinities (7 7s tAoc.,—the pop- 
ular, current, philos. of the day), which 
would be likely to have taken nowhere 
firmer root than among the speculative ° 
and mystery-loving Phrygians of the first 
century ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 
p. 321 sq. (Bohn), and the good note of 
Wordsw. on this verse. In estimat- 
ing the errors combated in St. Paul’s 
Epistles which were allied with Judaism, 
it becomes very necessary to distinguish 
between, (a) Pharisaical Judaism, such 
as that opposed in the Epistle to the Ga- 
latians; (6) Christianity tinged with 
Jewish usages and speculations as con- 
demned in the Pastoral Epistles, — not 
heresy proper, but an adulterated Chris- 


Cnap. II. 8, 9. 


‘ , a > , \ 
TAapdoocw TOV aVSpOTTOV, KATA 
\ , 9 > A 
Kata Xpwictov, OTL €V avT@ 
tianity (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 4), which 
afterwards merged into (c) speculative 
and heretical Judaism, as noticed in this 
Epistle ; perhaps of a more decided Cab- 
balistic origin, and associated more inti- 
mately with the various forms of Orien- 
tal theosophy : see Neander, /. c., Rothe, 
Anfinge, p. 320 sq., Burton, Lectures, 
111. Vol. 1. p. 76: (ed. 2), Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. v1. 13, Vol. 11. p. 642 sq. 

‘KaTd Thy Tapad. Tav ava. ‘ac- 
cordiny to the tradition of men ;? modal 
predication attached, not to tis ptAogo- 
dias, x. 7. A. (a construction in a high 
degree grammatically doubtful), but to 
the part. cvAaywyaev, defining, first posi- 
tively and then negatively, the charac- 
teristics of the cvAaywyta. Philosophy 
was the ‘ causa medians,’ rapdd. Tay avap. 
the ‘norma’ and ‘modus agendi.’ The 
gen. ray av%p. is apparently that of the 
origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 23), the mapd- 
Socis took its rise from, and was received 
from, men ; compare Gal. i. 12, 2 Thess. 
iii. 6. Meyer presses the art. tay avdp. 
(‘ray markirt die Kategorie, die ‘ traditio 
humana’ als solche der Offenbarung ent- 
gegengesetzt’), but apparently unduly : 
the article is probably only introduced 
on the regular principle of correlation ; 
see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6, p. 48 
(ed. Rose). 
oT0LX. K.T.A.] ‘according to the rudi- 
ments of the world ;? second modal pred- 
ication parallel to the foregoing. The 
antithesis od kata Xp. seems clearly to 
show that this expression here includes 
all rudimental religious teaching of non- 
Christian character, whether heathen or 
Jewish, or a commixture of both, — the 
first element possibly slightly predomi- 
nating in thought here, the second in 
ver. 20. On the various meanings as- 
signed to this difficult expression, see 
notes on Gal. iv. 3. 


KaTa Ta 


COLOSSIANS. 


163 


\ a 
Ta OTOLYELA TOU KOapOU Kal Ov 
KATOLKEL TAY TO TAHOMA THS 


kata& Xptotdy] ‘according to Christ ;’ 
clearly not, as Grot., Corn. a Lap., ‘ se- 
cundum doctrinam Christi,’ but ‘secun- 
dum Christum,’ @s rod Xpicrod xwpiCov- 
tas, Theod. (compare Chrys.): Christ 
Himself, the personal Christ, was the 
substance, end, and norma of all eyan- 
gelical teaching. A good lecture on the 
‘ten points of faith’ is based on this 
text by Cyr.-Hieros. Catech. rv. 

9. rt ev abra@] ‘because in Him;’ 
reason for the implied exclusion of all 
other teaching except that kata Xpiordy, 
ev avt@ being prominent and emphatic, 
and standing in close connection with 
the preceding Xpiordy, ‘in Him, and 
in none other than Him.’ Mill and 
Griesb., by placing a period after Xp. 
would seem rather to imply a reference 
to Bremere (compare Huth.), to which, 
however, the emphatic év ait@ seems de- 
cidedly opposed. KaTotKe?| 
‘doth dwell,’ —now and evermore: ob- 
serve both the tense and the compound 
form. . The former points to the present, 
continuing karolxnots of the Godhead in 
the glorified son of God (compare Hof- 
mann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 24); the 
latter to the permanent indwelling, the 
kat ola, not mapoiuta, of the mAfpoua 
SedrynT0s, compare Deyling, Obs. 1v. 1, 
Vol. rv. p. 591, and see notes on ch. i. 
19, and on Eph. iii. 17. 
mav to wrAHp.] ‘all the fulness of the 
Godhead,’ all the exhaustless perfections 
of the essential being of God: not with- 
out emphasis ; év jiv wiv yap amapxh 
kal appaBav SedrnTos Karoue?, év Xp. 5& 
mav Td TANp. THs Sedrntos, Athan. : see 
notes on ch. i. 19, where the meaning of 
mAnpwua in this connection is briefly in- 
vestigated. Any reference to the Church 
(Theod., but with some hesitation) is 
here wholly out of the question. It is 
only necessary to add that «drys must 


164 
YEornTos TwmaTiKas, 


not be confounded with Se.dtns (Rom. i. 
20), as Copt., Syr., /ith., and, what is 
more to be wondered at, Vulg., which 
has certainly two distinct words: the 
former is Deitas, ‘ die Gottheit,’ ‘ statum 
[essentiam] ejus qui sit Deus,’ August. 
Civ. Dei, vi1. 1, and points to the nature 
of God on the side of the actual essentia 
(7d civat @coy); the latter ‘ divinitas,’ 
‘die Gottlichkeit,’ ‘ conditionem ejus qui 
sit Sezos,’ and points to the divine nature 
on the side of its qualitas (7b <ivat Seiov) ; 
see Fritz. Rom. i. 20, Vol. 1. p.62. The 
real difficulty of the verse is in the next 


word. TwmaTiK@s| ‘in 
o °O > 
bodily fashion, Dow bheow on [corpo- 


raliter], Syr., ‘ corporaliter,’ Vulg. The 
meanings assigned to this word are very 
numerous. If we follow the plain lex- 
ical meaning of the word, and the true 
qualitative force of the termination -ixos 
(‘like what?’ Donaldson, Craty/. § 254), 
we must certainly decide that it signifies 
neither GAnSGs, Sc. ov ToTLKGs 4 OKLATI- 
k@s, ‘vere, non umbratice’ (August., 
compare Hammond 2), — édws, ‘ totali- 
? (Capell.). — odoiwdds sc. od cyxeTI- 
K@s, essentialiter, non relative’ (Cicum., 
Usteri, Zehrb. p. 308), —nor even s7o- 
orartk@s, ‘ personaliter’ (compare Cyr.- 
Alex. adv. Nest. 1. 8, p. 28), but — with 
reference, not so much to that which in- 
dwells, as to that which is dwelt in (Hof- 
mann, Schriftb. Vol. 11.1, p. 25),— 
‘bodily wise,’ ‘in bodily fashion,’ in the 
once mortal, and now glorified, body of 
Christ; comp. Phil. iii. 21. 
The wAnpoua SedrnTos, which once dwelt 
ov KaT& ocwuatikdy cidos in the Adyos 
&oapxos, now dwells forevermore cwuari- 
k@s (Chrys. calls attention to the precis- 
ion of the language; uh vouions Ody 
ouyKekAciovat, as év oduart) in the Ao- 
yos -évoapxos: compare Meyer in loc., 
and Hofmann Schrifth. l.c. So De 
Wette, Eadie, Alford, and most mod- 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cnap. II. 10. 


10 yom, | 3 > lol t v4 > ® 
KQU EOTE EV AUT@ TET AN POLEVOL, OS ¢OTW 


ern commentators, and anciently /®thi- 
opic, ‘in carne s. corpore hominis,’ and 
apparently Athanasius contr. Arian. 111. 
8, de Susc. Hum. Vol. 1. p. 60, Damase. 
Orthod. Fid. 111. 6, except that the refer- 
ence is perhaps not sufficiently extended 
to the present glorified body of our Re- 
deemer : see the copious reff. in Suicer, 
Thesaur.s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1216, and com- 
pare Wordsw. in loc. 

10. kat éore k.7.A.| ‘ anita 
yeare inhim filled full ;’ not exactly, ‘ye 
are made fullin Him’ (Eadie), but, as the 
position of éore and the order of the words 
seem to require, ‘ye are in Him made 
full,’— there being in fact a double pred- 
ication, ‘ye are united with Christ (do 
not then seek help of subordinate power), 
yea and filled with all His plenitude (and 
so can need nothing supplementary).’ 
There is no necessity to supply any defi- 
nite genitive, tis Sedrnros (Theoph.), 
Tod mwAnp. THS Sedt. (De W.), THs wis 
(Olsh.): all wherewith Christ is full; 
all His gifts, and graces, and communi- 
cable perfections, are included in the 
mAhpwors ; compare the somewhat paral- 
lel text Eph. iii. 19, and see notes in loc, 
Grotius and a few others regard éote 
as an imper. parallel to BAémere, but are 
rightly opposed by all modern commen- 
tators. ds é€oTiv K.7.A.] 
‘who is, i. e. seeing He is, the head of all 
(every) Principality and Power,’ the ds 
having a slight explanatory force (see 
notes on ch. i. 25, and on 1 Tim. ii. 4), 
and tacitly evincing the folly of seeking 
a wAfpwots from any subordinate source, 
or by any ceremonial agency (compare 
verse 11). The reading is somewhat 
doubtful: Lachm. reads 6 with BDEFG; 
Clarom., al., and encloses kai —év avT@ 
in a parenthesis, but as the neuter rela- 
tive would seem to have arisen from a 
mistaken ref. of évy avtg to mAnp., We 
seem justified in retaining 6s with AC 
KL; nearly all mss.; Chrys., Theod., 


Cuapr. II. 10,'11. 


H Kehpary maons apyns Kai efovoias ! év 


COLOSSIANS. 


165 


Ws \ A 
Kal TEepleTmHnySNTE 


c 


n A / la) / an 
MEPLTOLA UYELPOTOLNTH, EV TH ATEKOVTEL TOD THpuaATOS THS capKos, 


al., followed by Ree. and Tisch. On the 
use of the abstract terms &px7 and efov- 
cia to denote orders of heavenly Intelli- 
gences, see notes and reff. on Eph. i. 21, 
and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. &yyedos, Vol. 
I. p. 30-48. 

ll. é€v @] ‘in whom,’ i.e. ‘seeing 
that in Him,’ not ‘ per quem,’ Schoettg., 
év @ being exactly parallel with év aitg 
(ver. 10), and the use of the relative 
similar to that of és in the foregoing 
clause: all that the believer can receive 
in spiritual blessings is already given to 
him in Christ (Olsh.). 

Kal mweptetTuHanrtre| ‘ye were also 
circumcised,’ viz. at your conversion and 
baptism, ‘ quum primum facti estis Chris- 
tiani,’ Schoettg.: not ‘in whom too, ye, 
ete.,’ Eadie, which tends to separate cat 
from the verb on which it throws empha- 
sis. The Colossians seem to have been 
exposed to the influence of two funda- 
mental errors; first, the belief that they 
were under the influence, .or at any rate 
needed the assistance, of intermediate in- 
telligences ; secondly, the persuasion that 
circumcision, the symbol of purification 
appointed by God, must still be necessa- 
ry. Both are in fact met by the single 
clause kat éore—aemAnp. (see above) ; 
this, however, is further expanded in two 
explanatory relatival clauses, 8s éoriy, 
x. T. A. being directed against the first 
error, év @ kal x. T.A. against the sec- 
ond; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, 
p- 153. a&XEtpoToLnTe| 
‘not hand-wrought ;’ they were indeed 
circumcised —in a spiritual and anti- 
typical manner, as the two characteriz- 
ing definitions which follow still more 
clearly show. The epithet axep. puts 
in obvious contrast the spiritual reprrowh 
[Baptism, see below] with the legal, typ- 
ical, weprrou xeporolnros, performed 
outwardly éy capi, Eph. ii. 11. Sey- 


eral references to a spiritual circumcision 
will be found in Schoettg. Hor, Vol. r. 
p- 815; compare Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, 
al. The form éxewpor. occurs again 
Mark xiv. 58 (in expressed contrast), 
and 2 Cor. v. 1. 
amexdtboae. x. 7.A.| ‘inthe putting off 
of the body of the flesh ;? not ‘by means 
of etc.,’ Mey., the prep. év not having 
any quasi-instrumental force, but simply 
specifying that in which the zep:topy 
consisted (De W.), the external act in 
which it took place; compare notes on 
ver. 7, and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. 
In all such cases the real use of the prep- 
osition is local, but the application ethi- 
cal. The odua rijs capxds has been 
somewhat differently explained. Gram- 
matically considered, the expression is 
exactly the same as in ch. i. 22; apkds 
is the gen. of the material or specifying 
element (sce notes), but its meaning 
and application are necessarily different. 
There it was the material capt of the 
Redeemer without any ethical signifi- 
cance; here it is the material odpt, qud 
the seat of sinful motions, practically sy- 
nonymous with the more generic capa 
Guaprias (Rom. vi. 6), and designedly 
used in this place to keep up the anti- 
thetical allusion to legal circumcision : 
the meprr. xeipom. consisted in the améx- 
ducts and mepitouy of a part (Exod. iv. 
25), the wepir. Xpiorod in the améxdvors 
of the whole céua 77s capkos ; see Hof- 
mann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 154, and 
Wordsw. im loc., who pertinently cites 
the good doctrinal comments of Hilary, 
de Trin. 1x. 7. It is somewhat 
perverse in Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. 
p- 359 (Transl.), p. 455 (Germ.), to salve 
his general interpretation of capé by here 
giving to o@pa a figurative meaning 
(‘ massa,’ Calv., al.), which, even if lex- 
ically admissible, is obviously out of 


ev TH 


166 


COLOSSIANS. 


_Caap. II. 11, 12. 


> n A a a 12 fh bd na? a f 
év TH TeptToun ToD Xpictod, ™ cuvtapertes avT@ év TO Bamric- 


harmony with the concrete references 
(cuvtapevtes, ovynyepSnre) in the con- 
text. No writer has more ably vindicat- 
ed the prevailing meaning of capt (see 
notes on Gal. y. 5), but that there are 
some passages in the N. T. in which capt 
has a reference to sensationalism general- 
ly, to weakness, fleshliness, and sinful 
motions cannot safely be denied ; comp. 
with this expression, amerdvoduevor Tov 
mahaioy avoep. K. T. A. ch, iii. 9, and see 
especially the excellent article of Tho- 
Juck in Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 488- 
492. The reading of Rec., odu. Tov 
Gmapt. THs o. with D*DSE?KL, is rightly 
rejected by Zischener and most modern 
critics. 
Xp.] ‘in the circumcision of Christ, com- 
municated by, and appertaining unto, 
Christ; second characterizing definition 
parallel to év 7H amen. k. T. A. specifying 
more exactly the nature of the mepitowy 
&XElpoToinros. Xpicrod is not exactly a 
gen. auctoris (6 Xpiorbs wepiréuver ev TE 
Barrlowart, Theophyl.), but of the origin, 
or perhaps still more exactly, the oriqi- 
nating cause (see Hartung, Casus, p. 17, 
and notes on ch. i. 23) ; todtwy atrios 6 
deordtns Xpiotés, Theod.: Christ, by 
union with Himself, brings about the 
circumcision and imparts it to believers. 
To give the genitive a strongly possessive 
ref., e.g. ‘the circumcision undergone 
by Christ,’ Schoettg., seems, exegetical- 
ly considered, very unsatisfactory ; com- 
pare Olsh.inloc. 'The reference of amex. 
k. T. A. and mepir. Tov Xp. to the death 
of Christ (Schneckenburger, Theol. Jahrb. 
for 1848, p. 286 sq.) is convincingly re- 
futed by Meyer. Even Miiller (on Sin, 
Vol. 1. p. 359) will take no refuge in 
‘such an interpretation. 

12. guvtapéyvres| ‘having been 
buried together with Him,’ ‘when you were, 
etc.,’ the action described in the partici- 
ple being contemporaneous with that of 


évy TH wWepttT. TOD 


mepieT. (Mey.); compare ch. i, 20, and 
see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 883, Stallb. 
on Plato, Phedo, p.62 p. The tempo- 
ral force seems, however, here clearly 
secondary and subordinate, the primary 
force of the part. being apparently modal, 
and serving to define the manner in 
which the meprrouy Xp. was communicat- 
ed to the believer: compare especially 
Romans vi. 4. There seems no reason 
to doubt (with Eadie) that both here and 
Rom. /. c, there is an allusion to the xa- 
Tddvots and ayddvois in Baptism; see 
Suicer, Thesaur, s. v. avdd. Vol. 1. p. 
259, Bingham, Antig. xr. 11. 4, and 
comp. Jackson, Creed, x1. 17.6. That 
this burial with Christ is spiritually real 
and actual (7d Bdrricpa Kotvwvods Toret 
Tod Savdtov Xp. Theod.-Mops. on Rom. 
J. c.), not symbolical or commemorative, 
seems certain from the plain, unrestrict- 
ed language of the apostle; compare 
Waterl. Euchar. vit. Vol. tv. p. 577. 

ev @ kal ovyny.| ‘wherein ye were 
also raised with Him:’ GAN ov ragos 
pdvov eoti [7d Barricual, dpa yap Ti Pyotr, 
Chrysost. (compare Theoph.), — noticed 
by Meyer, Alf., and others as referring é 
to Xpiorés, but apparently without suffi- 
cient reason. ‘The reference of @ to Xp. 
(Mey., Eadie) is at first sight structurally 
plausible (8s...€v ...€v &), but on a closer 
consideration certainly not exegetically 
satisfactory ; the two spiritual character- 
istics, the 7d cuvrapjvac as shown in the 
katddvois, the 7d cvveyepSivar as shown 
in the avddvors, must surely stand in 
close reference and connection with Bap- 
tism. The counter-arguments of Meyer 
founded on the use of the prep. (év 6 not 
eé of), and the parallelism of the prepo- 
sitional clauses (cuvrad. abta ev Kk. T.A., 
curnyeps. did kK. T. A.) are not convine- 
ing. In the first place no other preposi- 
tion would be so appropriate as the semi- 
local é€v; and in the second place, dia 


Cuap. II. 12, 13. 


4 


COLOSSIANS. 


167 


3 a \ f A a i a b) 7 fa! 
Hart, €v ® Kat ournyépSynte ia THs wictews Tis EVEPYELAS TOU 


Ocod rod éyelpavtos avtov ék Tav vexpor. % Kal twas vexpods 
nr ‘ nn =) a 
dvras €v Tois TapaTT@pacw Kal TH axpoBvotia THs capKds 


k. T. A., the statement of the causa medi- 
ans, can scarcely be conceived as form- 
ing any logical parallelism with the fore- 
going semilocal év +G@ Bawr. Lastly the 
kal seems to keep both ovr. and cuvny. 
in close correlative reference to each 
‘other. By comparing Rom. 
vi. 4, it would seem that the primary ref. 
of ovyny. is clearly to a present and spir- 
itual resurrection, but again by compar- 
ing Ephes. ii. 6 (in which the converse 
seems true; see notes), it would also 
appear that a secondary ref. to a future 
and physical resurrection ought not to be 
excluded : as Jackson well says, ‘ of our 
resurrection unto glory, we receive the 
pledge or earnest when we receive the 
grace of regeneration which enables us 
to walk in newness of life; and this is 
called the jirst resurrection,’ Creed, x1. 
17.7; compare Waterland, Luchar. vit. 
Vol. iv. p. 577, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 
21, Vol. 11. p. 235. 

dia THs wlaotews| ‘through fuith:’ 
subjective medium by which the objec- 
tive grace is received : ‘ faith is not the 
mean by which the grace is wrought, 
effected, or conferred; but it may be and 
is the mean by which it is accepted or 
received,’ Waterl. on Justif. Vol. v1. p. 
23; compare Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 3, 
p. 216. The image of Alf., ‘the hand 
which held on, not the plank that saved,’ 
is, in more than one respect, not dogmat- 
ically satisfactory. TIS 
éevepyelas «.7.A.] ‘ (in) the effectual 
working of God :’ not gen. of the agent 
or causa efficiens (De Wette, al.), but 
more simply and intelligibly the genitive 


> n~ ¥ 
objecti; coAdtoe 619 [qui credi- 
distis in] Syr., sim. Ath., ‘in fide, in 
auxilio’ (Platt; Pol. inverts), émored- 
sare bri divaTat 5 Ocds eyeipa, Kal abrws 


nyepsnte, Chrys., —as in all cases where 
mioris is thus associated with a gen. rei, 
the gen. appears to denote the object of 
faith ; comp. Acts iii. 16, Phil. i. 27, 2 
Thess. ii. 13. The statement of Mey., en- 
dorsed by Eadie, and Alf. (but comp. the 
latter on Gal. iii. 2), that this is true in 
every case except where the gen. refers to 
the believer, does not seem perfectly cer- 
tain; see notes on Gal. ii. 16, iii. 22, and 
Stier on Eph. Vol.t. p. 477. 

Tov éyelpayTos k.T.A.] Clause 
appended, to give a sure and certain 
pledge (évéxupoy xovtes tod Seardtov 
Xpistov thy avdaracw, Theod.).of the 
almighty évépye of God, both in the 
present vivification to new life and the 
future vivification to glory (comp. Eph. 
i. 20 and notes in loc.) ;—* that nothing 
may be done or suffered by our Saviour 
in these great transactions but may be 
acted in our souls and represented in our 
spirits,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 265 
(ed. Burt.). 

13. kat buds] ‘and you also,’ ‘et 
vos etiam,’ Copt.; application of the 
foregoing to the Colossians, especially 
with reference to their formerly heathen 
State, ka) being associated with tuas and 
ascensive, not with ovve¢. in a merely 
copulative sense ; see notes on Eph. ii. 1, 
The pronoun is repeated after cuve¢. 
with ACKL (B, al., quas; more than 
40 mss.; Copt., Athiop., al.; Theod. 
(ms.), Dam., Gicum., and rightly adopt- 
ed by Tisch. and most modern editors ; 
the omission [ec. with DEFG; al.] 
was obviously suggested by the apparent 
syntactic difficulty. This, however, is 
very slight, as a rhetorical pleonasm of 
the pronoun for the sake of emphasis is 
not uncommon; see Bernhardy, Synt. 
VI. 4, p. 275. 
vekpovs dvtas] ‘being dead,’ or ‘when 


168 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 13. 


Upov, ovveCwoTroincey Las TY AUTO, Yaplodpevos Auiv TmavTa 


you were dead’ (not, ‘who were dead,’ 
Alf.), the past sense attributed to dvras 
being justified by the aorists which are 
associated with it in the sentence (Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 41. 1, p. 305); see also notes 
on Ephes. ii. 1 (Transl.). It seems ex- 
tremely unsatisfactory in Meyer, both 
here and Ephes, ii. 1, to give vexpots a 
proleptic reference to physical death, scil. 
‘certo morituri,’ trd Thy Sixny Exeirde 
amosxaveiy, Chrys. : a remote, inferential, 
reference to physical death may possibly 
be included (see Alf. on Eph. l. c.), but 
any primary ref. seems wholly irrecon- 
cilable with the context. 

€vy Tots wapamT.| ‘in your transgres- 
sions ;’ the prep. as usual marking the 
element in which the dead state was ex- 
perienced ; contrast Eph. ii. 1, where the 
év is omitted and the dat. is instruamen- 
tal. The prep. is actually omitted in 
BL; 20 mss.; Goth.; Greek Ff., but 
appy. either by accident or conformation 
to Eph./.c. There does not seem reason 
for receding from the general distinction 
between mapamr. and auapr. (especially 
when associated) advanced in notes on 


Eph. l..c. TH akpoR. THs 
capkds| ‘the uneircumeision of your 


flesh, i. e. that appertained to, was the 
distinctive feature of —the gen. not be- 
ing either of apposition (Storr), or quasi- 
material (B.-Crus., compare Alf.), but 
simply possessive. The associated words 
(obs. the omission of the prep.) and the 
foregoing use of the term (ver. 11) may 
perhaps justify us in assigning some eth- 
ical reference to cdpt, — not merely your 
material (Eadie), but your sinful, unpu- 
rified flesh, of which the ad«poBvotia was 
the visible and external mark ; they were 
heathens, unconverted, sinful heathens, 
as their very bodies could attest: this 
akpoBvorta, however, had now lost its 
significance; they were mepiretunwévor 
in Christ. *Axpofvoria is thus not ne- 


cessarily spiritual (Deut. x. 16, Jerem. 
iv. 4), but retains its usual and proper 
sense ; on the derivation (not &xpoy Biw, 
but a corruption of axpowocdia) see Fritz. 
Rom. Vol. 1. p. 136. 

cvve(wotolna er] ‘ He together quick- 
ened,’ spiritually, — with reference to the 
life of grace ; a secondary and inferential 
reference to the physical resurrection 
need not, however, be positively exclud- 
ed: see above, and notes on Eph. ii. 5, 
where the force of the aorist (what is 
wrought in Christ is wrought * ipso facto’ 
in all united with Him) is briefly noticed ; 
see especially Waterland, Luchar. 1x. 
Vol. Iv. p. 643. The great 
difficulty in this clause is the subject. 
On the one hand, a comparison with 
Rom. viii. 11, and still more Eph. i. 5, 
seems to point to the last substant. @eds, 
ver. 12; so Theod., Theoph., appy. Copt. 
[‘secum,’ Wilk., is a mistransl.], and 
nearly all modern commentators. On the 
other hand, the logical difficulty of sup- 
plying a nom. from the subordinate gen. 
cov, — the obvious prominence given to 
Christ throughout the preceding portion 
—the peculiar acts described in the par- 
ticiples (especially égaA. x. T. A. com- 
pared with Eph. ii. 15, and even xapic. 
compared with Col. iii. 13), —the rela- 
tion of Christ to apxal and efovetar (ver. 
15, compare i. 16, ii. 10), —and lastly, 
the extreme difficulty of referring the 
acts described in ver. 14, 15, to God the 
Father, are arguments so preponderant, 
that we can scarcely hesitate to refer ov- 
ve(. and its associated participles to 
Christ, who, as of the same essence and 
power with the Father and the Holy 
Ghost, did infallibly quicken Himself 
(Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 802, 
ed. Burt.) : so Chrys. (here, e sil., but 
elsewhere expressly), apparently Syriac 
and Goth. (certainly in ver. 15, see be- 
low), perhaps 42th. (Platt), and recently 


Cuap. II. 13, 14. 
Ta maparTopata, ™ éEareirvas 


Heinr., Baur, Paulus, p. 452 note, and 
very decidedly, Donalds. Chr. Orthod. 
p- 76. Itis somewhat singular that the 
Greek commentators Theod., Theoph., 
and Cicum.; silently adopt @eds as the 
subject of verse 13, and 6 @cbs Adyos 
(Theod.), as that of ver. 14, 15; comp. 
also Wordsw. in loc., who conceives the 
propositions in this and in the following 
verses ‘ to refer to God in Christ, and to 
Christ as God.’ Such an interpretation 
is dogmatically defensible on the ground 
of the ‘ communicatio idiomatum ’ (com- 
pare Ebrard, Chr. Dogm. § 885), and 
certainly deserves consideration, but 
viewed logically and grammatically 
seems somewhat artificial and unsatis- 
factory. We may observe lastly, that if 
the reference to Christ here advocated is, 
as it certainly seems to be, correct, it is 
worthy of serious notice that actions else- 
where ascribed by the apostle to God 
(Eph. ii. 5, compare Rom. viii. 11), are 
here unrestrictedly predicated of Christ. 
Meyer’s objection that the above interpr. 
is opposed to the ‘ Lehrtypus,’ that God 
raised Christ, is not very strong; God, 
it is here said, did raise Christ, Christ 
us, — yet, as God, also Himself. 

atv abr] ‘with Himself? As this 
seems a case in which a reference to the 
subject is somewhat immediate, and in 
which it is desirable to obviate misunder- 
standing, the aspirated form may be 
properly adopted ; comp. notes on Eph. 
i. 4. Xaptodmevos k.7.A.] 
‘having forgiven us all our transgressions ;’ 
modal participle describing the prelimi- 
nary act which conditioned the realiza- 
‘tion of the cuv(wmrolnots, by removing the 
true cause of the vexpérns: mdvta mapamr. 
moia; & Thy vexpdrnta emote, Chrys. ; 
compare ch. iii. 13, 2 Cor. v. 19, Ephes. 
iv. 32, and observe that in these last two 
passages Ocbs is the subject, yet with the 
‘noticeable addition, év Xpior@. For the 


COLOSSIANS. 


169 
TO Kay puav yYeipsypadov Tots 


reading tuiy (Elz. not Steph.), there is 
but little critical authority. Both exter- 
nal and internal arguments suggest the 
more inclusive juiv. 

14. €Earetwas| ‘having blotted out ;’ 
modal participle contemporary with, 
surely not prior to (Mey.) xapioduevos, 
and detailing it more fully and circum- 
stantially. Christ forgave us our sins 
when he took them upon Himself and 
suffered for us ; the mode of forgiveness 
was by cancelling the xe:péypapov. Sure- 
ly if this participle be applied to God, 
arguments might be founded on it not 
only in support of Patripassian doc- 
trines, but in opposition to the vicarious 
satisfaction of Christ. If God the Fa- 
ther did all this, what was the precise 
effect of the expiatory death of Christ ? 
To answer, with Eadie, ‘What Christ 
did, God did by Him,’ only evades, but 
does not meet, the difficulty. The form 
efaA. (Acts iii. 19, Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, 
xxi. 4; compare Psalm 1. 9, cyviii. 18), 
as its derivation suggests [a = avd, and 
Sanscr. lip, ‘ illinere,’ Pott, Etym. Forsch. 
Vol. 1. p. 258, Vol. 11. p. 153], properly 
denotes ‘ cera obducta delere ’? (compare 
Krebs, Obs. p. 8337), and thence, ‘ to ex- 
punge,’ ‘ wipe out,’ generally, in opposi- 
tion to ypdgew, Euripid. ap. Stob. Floril. 
xc1ir. 10, p. 507 (ed. Gesn.), or eyypd- 
gew, Plato, Rep. vi. p. 501 B, compare 
Xen. Hell. 11. 3. 51. 

To Kay Hudv xerp. x. 7.A.] ‘the 
handwriting in force against us by its de- 
erees;’ the dative déyuacw belonging 
closely to 7d Kad’ ju. xeip., and falling 
under the general head of the dative ‘ of 
reference to’ (notes on Gal. i. 22); the 
ddypara were that in which the 7d Ka?’ 
nuav (the hostile aspect or direction, op- 
posed to trép, see Winer, Gr. § 47. k, 
p. 341) of the bond was specially evinced : 
see Winer, Gr. § 31. 10.1,p.197. The 
usual explanation, ‘ consisting of déyua- 


22 


170 


L 3 e 


Soypacw oO 


va, ‘rituum chirographo,’ Beza,—in 
which the dat. would be equivalent to a 
kind of gen. materia, or involve a tacit 
ellipsis of év (compare Ephes. ii. 15) — 
seems distinctly ungrammatical, and that 
of Meyer, Eadie, and Alf., —according 
to which the dat. is governed by the ver- 
bal element in yerpdyp.,— more than 
doubtful, as xeup. is a synthetic compound 
(Donalds. Gr. § 372), and apparently 
incapable of such a decomposition ; com- 
pare Tobit v. 3, ix. 5, Polyb. Hist. xxx. 
8.4. The reference of xeipdypapoy has 
been very differently explained. The 
context would seem to suggest that xe 
poyp. is clearly not the command given 
to Adam (Theophyl. 2), nor the law of 
conscience (Luth.), nor even specially, 
the moral law (Calv.; compare Neand. 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 462), nor yet the 
ceremonial law (Schoettg., Wordsw. ; 
see especially Deyling, Ols. Part. rv. p. 
596 sq.), but the whole law, ‘nam benefi- 
cium chirographi ad omnes spectat, tam 
Gentiles quam Judzos : ergo hujusmodi 
chirogr. ponere oportet, quo ex aliqua 
parte tenentur omnes,’ Daven. ; compare 
Andrewes, Serm. 1v. Vol. 1. p. 54 sq. 
(A.-C. Libr.), and Vol. 111. p. 66, where 
he curiously terms it the ‘ragman roll :’ 
so De Wette, Mey., and most modern 
commentators. The xepdyp. was Kav’ 
heav, Jews and Gentiles ; immediately 
against the former, mediately and infe- 
rentially (as founded on immutable prin- 
ciples of justice and rectitude) against 
the latter, Rom. ii. 15, compare Rom. 
iii.19. It was in the positive commands 
whether written on stone or in the heart 
that the 7d ka judy was mainly evinced: 
compare on the prohibitive side, Rom. 
vii. 7 sq. The law was thus 
appropriately designated, being a‘ bond,’ 
an ‘obligatory document’ (comp. Plut. 
Mor. p. 829 4, and see exx. in Wetsi.), 
by which all were bound, and which 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 14. 


if a i \ 4 aA 
hv brrevayTiov Hiv, Kal adTO HpKev ex TOD pécov, Tpoc- 


brought penalty in case of non-fulfil- 
ment; compare Pearson, Creed, Art. 1v- 
Vol. 1. p. 248 (ed. Burt.), Usteri, Lehrb. 
11. 1, 2, p. 175, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 
li, Volaaxap. 1905 

8 iv brevavrlov hm] ‘which was 
against us ;’ expansion of the preceding 
7d KaX’ suey: it was hostile not merely 
in its direction and aspects, but practi- 
cally and definitely. - The idea of secret 
hostility (7d) is not implied either here, 
Heb. x. 27, or indeed in the majority of 
passages where the word occurs: see 
exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. y. Vol. 11. 
p- 2064. Perhaps the prep. may have pri- 
marily involved an idea of locality, local 
opposition (compare Hesiod, Scut. 347, 
inmot brevavtto: GAAHAoW oketa xXpept- 
cav, 1 Macc. xvi. 7) which in the meta- 
phorical applications of the word neces- 
sarily became obliterated. This is fur- 
ther confirmed by the fundamental mean- 
ing of imd, which, it may be observed, is 
not ‘under,’ but appears to be that of 
‘motion to the speaker from that which 
is near to him;’ see Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 279. kal abrd K.7.A.] 
‘and He hath taken it out of the way ;” 
change from the participial structure to 
that of the finite verb to add force and 
emphasis (see notes on ch. i. 6, 20), and 
especially to the perfect |D! FG; many 
mss.; Orig., Theod., al., read jpev, but 
ou insufficient authority] to express the 
enduring and permanent nature of the 
act; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 242, and 
notes on Ephes. ii.20. The addition é« 
peoou expresses still more fully the com- 
pleteness of the jjprey (émolnoe unde dal- 
versat, Theophyl., uh adels em xdpas, 
(Ecum.), and perhaps alse the impedi- 
mental character (Meyer) of the thing 
taken away ; examples of a¥peiv ex wéoov 
will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
323. TpPOTNABTAS K.T-A.| 
‘having nailed it to the ecross;’ modal 


Cuap. II. 15. 


COLOSSIANS. 


Lee 


rv / bs ae, A A 152 5 lA \ , \ \ \ 

QA@BCAS AVTO TO oTaUpP®, QATTEKOUCDALEVOS TAS apKXas Kat Tas 
? Ul > / > Be: / A > \ > > lal 
eEovolas edevypaticey év Tappnota, SprayuPevaas avtovs év auT@. 


participle, contemporaneous with the 
commencement of the #prev (Alf.), de- 
scribing the manner in which Christ re- 
moved the xepdypapoy: He nailed the 
Mosaic law with all its decrees to His 
cross, and it died with Him; airds xo- 
AagSels eAvoe Kal THY Guaptiay Kal Thy 
kédaow, Chrys. The reference to a bond 
cancelled by striking a nail through it 
(Pearson, Creed, Art. 1v. Vol. 11. p. 
248 ; compare d:eppnkev, Chrys., caréoxi- 
aev, Theoph.) seems very doubtful. All 
that the apostle seems here to imply is, 
that in Christ’s crucifixion, the curse of 
the law was borne, and its obligatory 
and condemnatory power, its power as 
a xelpdypapoy KaY judy, forever extin- 
guished and abrogated ; comp. Rom. vii. 
6, and see Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 
55 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 

15. adwekdvuo. Tas apxas K.T.A.] 
‘having stripped away from Himself the 
(hostile) principalities and powers ;’ 
ther ‘ exspolians,’ Vulg., silently follow- 
ed by apparently all modern writers ex- 
cept Deyling (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 609), Don- 
aldson (Chr. Orth. p. 68), Hofmann 
(Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 805), Alford, and 
Wordsw., nor even, ‘having stripped 
for Himself,’ ‘ deponere jubens,’ Winer, 
de Verb. Comp. 1v. 15, — both interprett. 
wholly unsupported by the lexical usage 
of amrodtw, éxddw, and amexd. (see Rost 
u. Palm, Lex. s. vy.), and opposed to St. 
Paul’s own use of the word, ch. iii. 9, — 
but ‘exuens se,’ Claroman., Copt. [mis- 
transl. by Wilkins], Aath. (Platt), Chrys. 
2, more distinctly Theoph. 2, and with 


nei- 


° v 

a special reference, Syriac SAD 
a 

ol; per exspoliationem corporis sui], 


Goth., ‘andhamonds sik leika, and per- 
haps Theod. followed by Hil., August., 
Pacian, and reflected in the ancient gloss 


amend. THY odpka, FG; Boern., al. The 
rare binary compound dazrexd. was appar- 
ently chosen rather than the simpler éxé. 
to express, not only the act of ‘ divesti- 
ture,’ but that of ‘removal ;’ see Winer, 
l.c. Itis singular that an interpretation 
of such antiquity, so well attested, and 
so lexically certain, should in modern 
times have been completely, if not con- 
temptuously ignored. The meaning of 
the expression is, however, somewhat 
obscure: it appears most probably to 
imply that, as hinted at by Theod., and 
apparently all the Greek commentators, 
our Lord by His death stripped away 
from Himself all the opposing hostile 
powers of evil (observe the article) that 
sought in the nature which He had con- 
descended to assume, to win for them- 
selves a victory, dmexdtoaTo thy AaBhy 
[ts aySpwros civ], avddnmros cipédy 
Tais apxais ka) Tats éEovcias, Theoph. 2, 
compare Theod. When He died on the 
cross, when He dissolved that temple in 
which they, both in earlier (Matth. iv. 1 
sq., Luke iv. i..sq., obs. pds katpdv, ver. 
13), and later, and perhaps redoubled 
efforts of temptation (see John xiv. 30, 
and especially Luke xxii. 53), had vainly 
endeavored to make sacrilegious. entry, 
He reft them away forever, and vindicat- 
ed His regal power (Pearson, Creed, Vol. 
1. p. 260, ed. Burt.) ; yea, the loud voice 
(Matth. xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37, Luke 
Xxill. 46) was the shout of eternal tri- 
umph and victory. See Wordsw. zn loc., 
who has adopted the same view, and 
well explained the peculiar significance 
of the term. Thus all seems 
clear, consistent, and theologically pro- 
found and significant ; while our Saviour 
bore the curse of the law, He destroyed 
its condemnatory power forever (arepié- 
meipey exec, Chrys.), while He underwent 
sufferings and death, and the last efforts 


T72 


Let no one judge you in 
ceremonial observances, 


‘COLOSSIANS. 


16 Mn odv Tis Has KpwweTo ev Bpdces 4) 


Cuap. II. 15, 16. - 


>, 


€V 


holding not the Head. Submit not to outward austerities that are inwardly vain and carnal. 


of baffled demoniacal malignity, He de- 
stroyed roy 7d Kpdtos Exovta Tov Savarou, 
Tour gor Toy didBodoy, Heb. ii. 14 ; com- 
pare 1 John iii. 8. 
apxas ar ras é&.| ‘the Principali- 
ties and the Powers (that strove against 
Him) :’ these abstract terms being used, 
as always in the N. T., with reference to 
spiritual beings (air ov s) and Intelligen- 
ces (see notes on Eph. i. 26, vi. 12), the 
context showing whether the reference 
is to good (ch. i. 16, see notes), or, as 
here, to evil angels and spirits; see Us- 
teri, Lehrb. 11.1. 2, p. 176, Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 226 sq. The 
opinion of Hofmann (Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 
305), Alf., al., that good angels only are 
here referred to, and that dmexd. refers 
to God putting aside from Him the nim- 
bus of the Powers which shrouded Him 
from the heathen world (Hofm.), is in- 
genious, but not satisfactory, and further 
rests on the assumption that this verse 
refers to Ocds, not Xpiords. 

éderymatiocev évy wapp.| ‘He made 
ashow of them with boldness;’ not 


TAS 


y. 
tS [diffamavit] Syr., sim. Goth., 


hoxnudynce, Chrys., compare Adthiopic 
(Platt) and Theod., — but simply, ‘fecit 
eos manifestos,’ Copt., ‘ ostentui esse 
fecit,’ Hil.: it was an open manifesta- 
tion, and that too, év mappyolg, ‘ with 
boldness,’ — not opp. to év kpurr¢ (John 
vil. 4), sc. Onuoolg, mavrwy dpévTwr, 
Chrysost., but, as the formula seems al- 
ways used by St. Paul, ‘ confidenter,’ 
Vulg.; see notes on Phil. i. 20. The 
word Seryuaricew (Matth. i. 19, Zachm., 
Tisch.), apparently confined to the N. T., 
does not much differ in meaning from 
the compound mapaderyuaricewv, except 
that it confines the idea to an open ex- 
hibition (as the context shows) in tri- 
umph, without any further idea of shame 
or ignominy (Polybius, Hist. xvir. 1. 5, 


xxx. 7.5). To connect év wags. with 
SpiauB. (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 305) 
seems very unsatisfactory, but has appy- 
arisen from the assumption that ‘ open- 
ly’ is the correct translation. 

SptauB. avrovs| ‘having triumphed 
over them ;’ contemporaneous with éderyyu. 
(see notes on ver. 12), explaining more 
fully the circumstances of the action. 
The expression SpiauBever Twa occurs 
again 2 Cor. ij. 14, and apparently there ~ 
(see Mey. zn loc.) as necessarily here, not 
in a factitive sense, but with an accusa- 
tive of the object triumphed over, or led 
in triumph; compare Plut. Comp. Thes. 
c. Rom. § 4, BactArets éSpiduBevoe kab jrye- 
pévas, and examples cited by Wetst. on 
2 Cor. 1. c. On the derivation of the 
word [Spi-, cogn. with Sup-, connected 
with tpets, and YauBos or &uBos, ‘ proces- 
sion,’ or ‘ close dance’|, see Donaldson, 
Cratyl. § 317, 318, and compare Benfey, 
Wurzellexr. Vol. 11. p. 260. The varied 
nature of our blessed Redeemer’s meek 
triumphs is well set forth by Hilary, de 
Trin. x. 48 (cited by Wordsw.). 

évy avt@| ‘init;’ not (a) ‘in the nailed 
up xetpsypapov,’ Mey., which would give 
a force to av7@ with which its position and 
the context seem at variance; nor (db) 
‘in semetipso,’ Vulg., Andrewes, Serm. 
Vol. 111. p. 66, which would form an 
almost unnecessary addition ; but (c) ‘in 
it,’ scil. TG craups (ev TH EvAw, Orig.) 
with the Greek commentators and ma- 
jority of modern expositors : 7b yap Tod 
Kécpov épavtos tvw ev TS EVAw Toy bow 
chayiacdivat, TodTO €or. TO Savpaotorv, 
Chrys. ; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 
291, and especially notes, Vol. 11. p. 
217, 218 (ed. Burt.). 

16. «4% ody] ‘Let not then,’ ete.;? 
with reference to ver. 14 sq., oov having 
its usual collective force, and recalling 
the readers to the fact that the Mosaic 
Law is now abrogated; see notes on 


Cnap. II. 16, 17. 


COLOSSIANS. 


173 


x an E) f x / oF ad \ 
TOcEL, %) ev MEpEL EoPTHS 1) voupnvias 1) caBBdtav, “ & éotw Kd 


16. 4 ev] Tisch. (ed. 2) reads kal év only on the authority B; Copt., Syriac; 
Orig. (1) ; Hier., Tichon. (Tertull. ‘et’ 4 times), but now (ed. 7) has rightly re 


turned to the reading of Rec., Lachm. 


The common association of Bpdots and wécts 


would very naturally have suggested the displacement of 7 for the more usual kat. 


ver. 6. KptvéTw ev 
Bpdcei| ‘judge you in eating,’ pass a 
judgment upon what may or may not be 
eaten ; év referring to the item 7m which 
the judgment was passed, see Rom. ii. 
1, xiv. 22. Bpdéots is not here ‘ cibus,’ 
Vulg. (comp. Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. 
Iii. p. 200), but, as apparently always 
in St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. xiv. 17, 1 
Cor. viii. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 10), ‘esus,’ ‘ac- 
tus edendi,’ Copt., Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 
159, the passive verbal being regularly 
used by the apostle in reference to the 
thing eaten ; comp. 1 Cor. 111. 2, vi. 13, 
wit 8; 13, x. 3/51 Tim. iv. 3. ° The ‘dist 
tinction is, however, not observed in St. 
John (comp. iv. 32, vi. 27), nor indeed 
always in classical writers, comp. Hom. 
Od, 1.191, vi. 176; Plato, Legg. v1. p. 
783 c, cited by Meyer, does not seem 
equally certain. The rule of Thom. M., 
Bpduata mAnSuyTiKas, ov BpGua, ovdé 
Bp@o1s, cannot be substantiated; see 
notes collected by Bern. in loc., p. 174. 

} év wécet| ‘orin drinking,’ the prep. 
being repeated to give a slight force to 
the enumeration. The remarks made 
in respect to Bpdois apply exactly to 
moots, contrast 1 Cor. x. 4 with Rom. 
xiv. 17, and compare John vi. 55. As 
there is no command in the Mosaic law 
relative to méo1s except in the case of 
Nazarites (Numb. vi. 3) and priests be- 
fore going into the tabernacle (Lev. x. 
9), and as méoe scems certainly to form 
a distinct member (opp. to Alf.), we are 
driven to the conclusion that the Colos- 
sian heretics adopted ascetic practices in 
respect of wine and strong drinks, per- 
haps of a Rabbinical origin. The Es- 
senes, we know, only drank water: zo- 
tov Hdwp vayariatoy airois éotw, Philo, 


de Vit. Cont. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 477 (edit. 
Mang.). €v mépet 
EoptiHs| ‘in the matter of a festival:’ 
not ‘in the partial observance of festi- 
vals’ (od yap 8) mdvta Karetxov Ta mpd- 
tepa, Chrys.), ‘ob partem aliquam festi 
violatam,’ Day., nor ‘in segregatione ’ 
(7. e. setting apart one day rather than. 


m > a 
another), Caly., comp. Syr. or 


[in divisionibus s. distinctionibus], nor 
specifically, ‘in the [Talmudical] tract 
upon,’ Hamm. after Casaub. and Scal., 
—— but, simply and plainly, ‘in the mat- 
ter of,’ «épos pointing to the ‘class’ or 
‘eategory’ (Mey.); see Plato, Republ. 
I. p. 348 B, ev aperis kad codias tiSns 
méper Thy adictay, Thecet. p. 155 8, al., 
examples in Loesner Obs. p. 367, and 
compare 2 Cor. iii. 10. The three ob- 
jects in the matter of which judgment is 
forbidden, are enumerated in reference 
to the frequency of their occurrence ; éop- 
7 referring to one of the greater feasts, 
vouunvia to the monthly festival of the 
new moons (Numb. x. 10; see Jahn, Ar- 
cheol. § 351, Winer, RWB. s. v. -‘Neu- 
monde,’ Vol. 11. p. 149), and cdBBara to 
the weekly festival; comp. Gal. iv. 10. 
17. &@ @oriv)] ‘which things are;’ 
relative clause showing the justice of the 
preceding command, the relative having 
a slight explanatory force ; see notes on 
ch. i. 25, 27. That & refers not merely 
to the last three items but to the whole 
verse, ?.e. to all legal or traditionary 
ceremonies, seems clear from the con- 
text. The reading 6, with BFG; Cla- 
rom., Goth., al. (Zachm.), is not improb- 
able, but is insufficiently attested. 
oxida] ‘shadow ;’ not ‘an outline,’ in 
reference to a oxiaypagia, ‘ beneficia 


174 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 17; 18, 


TOV meANOVTWV, TO bE cHua Xpictod. ¥® pnbSels buas cataBpa- 


Christi ac doctrinam evangelicam ob- 
scure delineabant,’ Daven.,—a mean- 
ing doubtful even in Heb. x. 1, but, as 
the antithesis g@ua obviously requires, 


{Asts3 [umbre] Syr., shadows op- 
posed to substance (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 
11. 2.5, oxtay aitnoduevos BactAcias, 7s 
Hpwacey éavTG Td cama), and with per- 
haps some further reference to tke typi- 
cal character of such institutions, shad- 
ows flung forward (‘ preenunciative ob- 
servationes,’ Aug.) from the ra wéAdovTa 
(scil. 7a THs Kawijs Siadnens, Theoph.), 
from the future blessings and realities of 
the Christian covenant ; mpoAauBdver dé 
) TKI TO CGua avicxovtos tov pwrds, 
Theod. The use of the present éorw 
must not be unduly pressed ; ‘loquitur 
de illis ut considerantur in sud natura, 
abstractz a circumstantiis temporis,’ Da- 
venant. 7d 5&€ cGpa Xp.| ‘but 
the body (their substance) is Christ’s ;’ the 
oGua, SC. TOv wedAAdyTay, belongs to Christ 
in respect of its origin, existence, and re- 
alization ; ‘in Christo habemus illa vera 
et solida bona que erant adumbrata et 
figurata in predictis cxrimoniis,’ Daven. 
The nom. might at first sight have been 
expected; the possessive gen. Xpiotod 
[so Tisch. rightly, with DEFGKL; not 
Tov Xp. with ABC; Lachm.], however, 
is of more real force, as marking that the 
true oGpua Tay weAAdyTwy not merely was 
Christ, but belonged to, was derived 
from Him, and so could only be realized 
by union with Him. A reference of this 
clause to ver. 18 (comp. August. Epist. 
59) destroys the obvious antithesis and 
is wholly untenable. The assertion 
of Alf. (comp. Olsh.) — that if the ordi- 
nance of the Sabbath had been in any 
form of lasting observation in the Chris- 
tian Church, St. Paul could not have 
used such language,— cannot be sub- 
stantiated. The o¢8Barov of the Jews, 


as involving other than mere national 
reminiscences (with Deuteron. y. 15, 
contrast Exod. xx. 11), was a ond of 
the Lord’s day: that a weekly seventh 
part of our time should be specially 
given up to God rests on considerations 
as old as the Creation; that that seventh 
portion of the week should be the jirst 
day, rests on apostolical, and perhaps 
inferentially (as the Lord’s appearances 
on that day seem to show) Divine usage 
and appointment; see Bramhall, Lord’s 
Day, Vol. v p.32 sq. (A.-C. Libr.), and 
Huls. Essay for 1843, p. 69. 

18. kataBpaBeveto| ‘beguile you 
of your reward:’ so distinctly, Zonar. 
on Conc. Laod. Can. 35 (Suicer, Thesaur. 
S. v.), KaTaBpaBewew eo Td wh viKHoaY- 
ta atiovv Tod BpaBelov, GAN Erépw~ Biddvae 
até, aducoupéevov Tod uikhoavTos, the kata 
marking the hostile feeling towards the 
proper recipient, which dictated the con- 
sequent injustice, and 7d mapaBpaBevew ; 
see Demosth. Mid. p. 544, émordpeda 
Srpatava ims Meidiov karaBpaBeuvsévra 
Kal Tapa mdvTe TH Sikata aTiuwsevra, and 
Buttm. in loc. (Index, p. 176), who per- 
tinently remarks, ‘ verbum in translato 
sensu aliter usurpari non potuisse quam 
de eo qui debitam alteri victoriam eripit.’ 
The many renderings, either insufficient 
(karaxpwérw, Hesych. incorrect (kata- 
madkaétw, Castal. ap. Pol. Syn.), or per- 
verted (¢. g. katakuptevérw, Corn. & 
Lap.), that have been assigned to this 
word will be found in Pol. Synops., and 
in Meyer in loc. The BpaBetor, 
of which the false teachers sought to de- 
fraud the Colossians was not their Chris- 
tian freedom (Grot.),—at first sight a 
plausible interpretat., — but, as the con- 
text and the grave nature of the error it 
reveals seem certainly to suggest, ‘vita 
eterna,’ Gom., 7d BpaBetov tis vw KAT- 
gews (Phil. iii. 14), and with a more ex- 
act allusion, the %&pSaproy orépavoy (1 


Cuap. II. 18. 


COLOSSIANS. 


; 175 


L Lt > , \ ' A > a 
Bevéto Sérov ev tarrewohpootvy Kai Npynoxela Tov ayyédov, & 


Cor. ix. 25), the orébavoy tis Sicaoov- 
vns (2 Tim. iv. 8), ris (wis (James i. 
12), ris ddés (1 Pet. v. 4), which the 
Lord, 6 dixatos xpirhs (2 Tim. /. c.), will 
give to the Christian victor at the last 
day. This prize the false teachers sought 
to obtain, but it was under circumstances 
of such fatal error, viz., the worship of 
angels, the introduction, in fact, of fresh 
mediators, that they would eventually 
beguile and defraud of the BpaBetov those 
who were misled enough to join them : 
‘nihil aliud moliuntur nisi ut palmam 
ipsis intercipiant, quia abducunt eos a 
rectitudine cursus sui,’ Calv.,—who, 
however, does not appear to have felt 
the precisely correct application of kara- 
BpaBevew. %€Awy| ‘ desir- 
ing (to do it),’ scil. kataBpaBetew ; SéAwv 
Tovto moiety, CXcum.; modal participle 
defining the feelings they evinced, and 
hinting at the studied nature of the course 
of action which they followed, and which 
resulted in the karaBpdBevors ; TodTo Ta 
yvuv ovveBovAevoy exetvot yiyvetdat, TaTel- 
voppoowvn Oidvev Kexpnuevor, Theodor , 
who, however, somewhat overpresses 
S€Awv, compare notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. 
These feelings were not directly, but in- 
directly, hostile to the raraBpaBevdynodme- 
vot; the purpose was to secure the oré- 
gavos for themselves and their followers ; 
the result, to lose it themselves, and to 
defraud others of it. Two other inter- 
pretations have been proposed ; (a) the 
Hebraistic construction, SéAew év tarewv., 
aes Ven (1 Sam. xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 
26, 1 Kings xv. 26, 2 Chron. ix. 8, only, 
however, with a personal pronoun), 
adopted by Aug., al., and recently by 
Olshaus., but contrary to all analogy of 
usage in the N. T.; and, perhaps more 
plausibly, (b) the connection KkataB. 3é- 
A@y, apparently favored by Syr., and, 
with varying shades of meaning assigned 
to the part., by Beza, Zanch., Tittmann 


(Synon. 1. p. 181), al., and most recent- 
ly, Alf. The former is distinctly unten- 
able, as contrary to all analogy of usage 
of SéAew in the N. Test. The latter is 
structurally and grammatically defensi- 
ble, compare 2 Pet. iii 5, but, even in 
the translation of Alf., ‘of purpose de- 
fraud you,’ exegetically unsatisfactory, 
as it would seem to impute to the false 
teachers a frightful and indeed suicidal 
malice, which is neither justified by the 
context, nor in any way credible. They 
sought to gratify their vanity by gaining 
adherents, not their malice hy compass- 
ing, even at their own hazard, their ruin. 
The karaBpaBevors was perhaps reckless- 
ly risked, but not maliciously designed 
beforehand. ‘The translation of Words- 
worth is much more plausible, ‘by the 
exercise of his mere will,’ but is perhaps 
scarcely so simple as that of the Greek 
commentators proposed above. 


‘in lowliness ;’ 


éy tTamwetvogp.| ele- 
ment in which he desires to do it, the 
prep. év not being so much instrumental 
(Mey.) as modal, ras, év rarew. ; 7) Tas, 
guotodmevos ; Seikvuor Kevodokias by Td 
may, Chrys. It seems clear that tamer- 
vopp. is not here proper Christian hu- 
mility (see notes on Phil. ii. 3), but a 
false and perverted lowliness, which 
deemed God was so inaccessible that He 
could only be approached through the 
mediation of inferior beings ; 
&s ddpatos 6 Tav bAwy Ocds, avépintds TE 
kal &katdAnmtos, Kal mpoohker dia TaY 
‘byyédwy Thy Selay edudveray mpayyared- 
eoSat, Theod. ; see also Zonaras on Can. 
35, Cone. Laod. (A. D. 363% see Giesel. 
Kirchengesch. Vol. 1. p. 396), where this 
heresy was expressly condemned ; see 
ap. Bruns, Concil. Vol. 1. p. 37. 

Spnonela tav ayyéArwy] ‘worship 
of the angels ;’ not gen. subjecti (James 
i. 26), ‘qua angelos deceat,’ Wolf, with 
reference to the ultra-human character of 


AéyovTes 


176 


> 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II..18, 


Me LB ’ ba In dl e A A \ ny x 
HH Eopakev €mPatevor, etx) PvoLovpEVvos UTFO TOU VOOS THs CAapKOS 


‘ 


devotion which the false teachers affected 
(see Noesselt, Disput., Hale, 1789), but 
gen. objecti (Wisdom xiv. 21, cidéAwv 
Spnoxela, and examples in Krebs, Obs. 
p- 339), worship paid to angels; see 
Winer, Gr. § 20. 1, p. 168, and Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 44. Theodoret no- 
tices the prevalence of these practices in 
Phrygia and Pisidia, and the existence 
of edxrhpia to Michael in his own time: 
even in modern times the worship of the 
Archangel in that district has not become 
extinct; see Conyb. notes in /oc., and 
on angel-worship generally, the good 
note of Wordsw. on ver, 8. Whether 
this had originally any connection with 
Essene practices, cannot satisfactorily 
be determined, as the words of Joseph. 
Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 7, are ambiguous ; see 
Whiston in loc. That it was practised 
by Gnostic sects is attested by Tertull. 
Prescr. § 33, Iven. Her. 1. 31. 2, Epiph. 
Her. xx. 2: see further references in 
Wolf, in loc. The evasive interpretation 
of Spnox., talem angelorum cultum qui 
Christum excludat,’ Corn. a Lap., ‘zm- 
pium angelorum cultum,’ Just., is wholly 
opposed to the simple and inclusive 
meaning of the word ; compare Browne, 
Articles, Art. Xx1t. p. 539. 
& wh Edp. euB.] ‘intruding into the 
things which he hath not seen ;’ wh not ov, 
as the dependence of the sentence on y7- 
dels Suds kataBp. leaves the objects natu- 
rally indeterminate, and under subjec- 
tive aspects ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 3, p. 
426; compare Exod. ix. 21, 0s wh mpo- 
céoxe TH Siavola eis Td pijua, where the 
use of the “7 somewhat similarly results 
from the indeterminate nature of the sub- 
ject of the verb. The reading is doubt- 
ful. The negative is omitted by Lachm. 
{with ABD1: 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., 
Copt.; Tertull., Ambrst., al.], but right- 
ly retained by Tisch. [with CD2D9EKL 
(FG otx) ; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both), 


Vulg., Boern., Goth., ith. (Platt), al. ; 
Origen, Chrys., Theod.], as, in the first 
place, external authority is distinctly 
preponderant, and secondly, the less 
usual subjective negative led to correc- 
tion, and correction to omission. Mey. 
and Alf. defend the omission, adopting 
an interpretation (‘an inhabitant of the 
realm of sight, not of faith,’ Alf.) which 
is ingenious, but not very plausible or 
satisfactory ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 827 note (Bohn). 

’"EuBarevew, with an accus. objecti, has 
properly a local sense, e. g. médw, Eurip. 
Electr. 595, vadv, ib. Rhes. 225 (see fur- 
ther examples in Krebs, Obs. p. 341), 
and thence by a very intelligible appli- 
cation an ethical reference, the accusa- 
tive denoting the imaginary realm to 
which the action extended; comp. (but 
with a dative) Philo, Plant. Noe, § 19, 
Vol. 1. p. 341 (ed. Mangey), éuBaredvoy- 
Tes emioThucus. eit 
puctovyu.] ‘vainly puffed up;’ modal 
clause, more fully defining éuBarevwv. 
The false teachers were inflated with a 
sense of their superior knowledge, but 
it was efx} (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xy. 2, 
Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11), bootlessly, without 
ground or reason. On the derivation 
[from eY«ev, perhaps Sanscr. vican, ‘ re- 
cedere ’| compare, but with caution, Ben- 
fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 349. De W., 
following Steig., joins ei<# with the pre- 
ceding clause ; this is a possible, but not 
probable connection, as it would throw 
an emphasis on the adverb (comp. Gal. 
iii. 4) which really seems solely confined 
to & wh édparev. brd Tod 
vods x. 7.A.] ‘by the mind of his flesh, 
2. é. the higher spiritual principle in its 
materialized and corrupted form, the 
genitive probably being simply possessive 
(compare notes on Eph. iv. 23), and the 
contradictory form of the combination 
being chosen to depict the abnormal 


? 


Cnar. II. 19. 


COLOSSIANS. 


lod 


LT 


rn \ vA aA a lal a 
avtod, © Kal ov Kpatov THY Kepadny, €& ob TaV TO CHpua Sid TOV 


condition : the flesh was, as it were, en- 
dued with a vods (instead of vice versa), 
and this was the ruling principle ; see 
Olsh. Opusc. p. 157, Delitzsch, Psychol. 
iv. 5, p. 144, and for the normal mean- 
ing of vods in the N. T., notes on 1 Tim. 
5. The odpt apparently stands in 
latent antithesis to the mvetua (compare 


Vi. 


Chrys. id capructs Stavolas od myeupa- 
Tixhs), and seems here clearly to retain 
its ethical sense, ‘his world-mind’ (Miil- 
ler, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 356, Clark), 
his devotion to things phenomenal and 
material; compare Tholuck, Stud. u. 
Krit. 1855, p. 492, Beck, Seelend. 11. 18, 
p- 53. 

19. kal od Kpat@y x. 7.A.] ‘and 
not holding fust the head ;’ od not wh, the 
negation here becoming direct and ob- 
jective, and designed to be specially dis- 
tinct ; compare Acts xvii. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 
26, and see Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, p. 430, 
and especially Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 287 
sq., where there is a good collection of 
examples. Kpareiy is here used with an 
accus. in the same sense as in Acts iii. 
11, compare Cant. iii. 4, éxpdrnoa airy, 
kal ovk apijika abtovy, and Polyb. Hist. 
vil. 20. 8, and denotes that individual 
adherence to Christ the Head which 
alone can constitute life and salvation ; 
tt rolvuy thy Keparhy apels exn Ta 
ved@y, Chrysost.: compare the possible 
physiological reference alluded to in 
notes on J7ph. iv. 16. 
ef 06] ‘from which ;’ not neut., either 
in reference to rd kpareiv, Beng., or un- 
der an abstract and generalized aspect 
(Jelf. Gr. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Spracii. § 61. 
7.9), to kepaathv, Mey., Eadie, but, as 
the exactly parallel passage Eph. iv. 16 
so distinctly suggests, —masc. in ref. to 
Xpiorod, the subject obviously referred 
to in kepadjy. The assertion of Meyer 
that the reference is not to Christ in His 
personal relations cannot be substantiat- 


ed. The following verse seems to imply 
distinctly the contrary. Nor again, does 
it seem necessary, with the same com- 
mentator, to refer e& ob both to the par- 
ticiples and the finite verb, as in Ephes. 
iv. 19; the connection seems naturally 
with aijter,—the prep. é€ marking the 
source and ‘fons augmentationis;’ see 
notes on’ Gal. ii. 16. 
mav 7 c@mal ‘the whole body ;’ sure- 
ly not necessarily ‘the body in its every 
part,’ Alf. : between 7d may o@pa (a po- 
sition of the art. very rarely found in the 
N. T.) and way 7d cGpua no distinction 
can_safely be drawn. If més had occu- 
pied the position of a secondary predi- 
cate (comp. Matth. x. 30, Rom. xii. 4) 
there would have been some grounds for 
the distinction. d1a TOY 
apav cal ouvvd.] ‘by means of its 
joints and bands ;’ media of the éiyoph- 
ynois and ouuBiBaois. The ada and 
otvderpor, as the common. article seems 
to hint, are the same in genus; the for- 
mer referring, not to the ‘ nerves,’ Mey. 
(in opp. to Syr., Aith. (Platt), Coptic, 
and all the best Vy.), but to the joints, 
the ‘commissure’ of the frame (comp. 
Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 96); the 
latter to the varied ligatures of nerves 
and muscles and sinews by which the 
body is bound together. The distine- 
tions adopted by Mey., al.,— according 
to which the apa? are specially associated 
with émxop., and referred to Faith, the 
ovvd. with oupB., and referred to Love, 
—are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to’ 
be relied upon. As in Eph. J. c., the 
passage does not seem so much to in- 
volve special metaphors, as to state for- 
cibly and cumulatively a general truth ; 
mao i) exkAnota, ews by Exn Thy Kepadrhy, 
avter, Chrys. | émixop. 
kal ouvpB.] ‘being supplied and knit 
together ;? passive and present; the ac- 
tion was due to communicated influen- 
23 


178 


COLOSSIANS 


Cuap. II. 19, 20. 


apav Kai cvvdeopov emruyopyyovpevor Kat ocupBiBatouevoy aver 


tiv avknow tod Ocod. » Ei ameSdvete oly Xpiotd amo Tov 


ces, and the action was still going on. 
To give emxop. a middle sense (adie), 
‘furnished with reciprocal aid,’ seems 
highly unsatisfactory: the pass. of the 
simple form is by no means uncommon ; 
see Polyb. Hist. 111. 75. 3, v1. 15.4, 3 
Mace. vi. 40. The force of ém is not 
intensive but directive, pointing to the ac- 
cession of the supply, ‘ cui, quae sunt ad 
incrementum necessaria, sufficiuntur,’ 
Noesselt (see notes on Gal. iii. 5); but it 
does not seem improbable that both in 
xopyy. and émxop. some trace of the pri- 
mary meaning, some reference to the free 
and ample nature of the supply, is still 
preserved, compare 2 Pet. i. 5, with ver. 
8, and Winer on Gal. iii. 5, p. 76. On 
the meaning of cupB. see notes on Eph. 
iv. 16. THY ak. TOD 
@cod| ‘ with the increase of God,’ i. e. 


the increase which God supplies, rod 


@cod being the gen. auctoris or originis, 
Hartung, Casus, 17, 23; compare 1 Cor. 
iii. 6, 7, al. To regard the expression 
as a periphrasis is wholly untenable ; see 
Winer, Gr. § 36. 8, p. 221. The accus. 
avénow is that of the cognate subst. (not 
merely ‘of reference,’ Alf.), and serves 
to give force to, and develop the mean- 
ing of the verb ; see Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, 
p. 200, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 sq., 
where this etymological figure is elabo- 
rately discussed. 

20. ci awed. x. 7. A] ‘If ye be 
dead with Christ ;? warning against false 
‘asceticism ; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 3, 
and compare generally Rothe, Theol. 
Eithik, § 878 sq., Vol. 111. p. 120 sq. 
The apostle grounds his gentle expostu- 
lation on the acknowledged fact that they 
were sharers (by baptism, ver. 12) in the 
death of Christ; in ch. iii. 1, he bases 
his exhortation on their participation in 
His resurrection. The collective ody, 
and the art. before Xp. inserted in Rec., 


have the authority of all the MSS. 
against them, and are properly rejected 
by all modern editors. amd 
TOV GTOLX. TOD Kdcmovl| ‘ from 
the rudiments of the world,’ ‘ from ritualis- 
tic observances and all non-Christian 
rudiments which in any way resembled 
them ;” see notes on ver. 8. The Law 
and all its ordinances were wiped out by 
the death of Christ (ver. 14), they who 
were united with Him in His death 
shared with Him all the blessings of the 
same immunity. There is no brachylogy 
(Huth.) ; Christ Himself amrdéSavev amd 
véuov, when He fulfilled all its claims 
and bore its curse. The ‘ constructio 
preenans’ ames. ard only occurs here 
in the N. T.; it is probably chosen in 
preference to the dat. (Rom. vii. 14, Gal. 
ii. 19), as expressing a more complete 
severance, —not only death to it, but 
separation and removal from it; comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 47, p.331. 

&s (Gvres év ntéouw] ‘as if ye 
were living in the world, i. e. as if ye were 
in antithetical relations; ‘ye are dead 
with Christ; why do ye live as if in a 
character exactly the reverse, as in a 
non-Christian realm, from all the rudi- 
ments of which ye are really dead 2’ 
SoymatiCease] ‘do ye submit to ordi- 
nances ;’ imrdxeioe Tots oT oLxelors, Chrys., 
TaY TadTa didacKdyTwY avexecde, Theod.: 
middle, — certainly not active, ‘ decerni- 
tis,’ Vulg., ‘ unredip,’ Goth. (a meaning 
here not only inappropriate but lexically 
incorrect), and appy. not passive, ‘pla- 
citis adstringimini,’ Beza; (comp. Syr. 

= = n~ 

abe 92A\So [judicamini] ; Coptic and 
JEth. paraphrase), as this, though per- 
fectly lexically admissible (observe 2 
Mace. x. 8, édoyudrioay maytl TO eave), 


seems somewhat less in harmony with 
the tone of this paragraph than the ‘ do- 


Cap. IT. 21, 22, 


COLOSSIANS. 


179 


oToLyelwv Tod Kdo mov, TLOs Cortes ev Koop@ SoypatiterSe. 7! Mr 
Gyn, pnde yeton, pnde Siyns * (a4 éotw ravta eis PYopav 7H 


ceri vos sinitis’ (Grot.) of the middle; 
Spa 5¢ ral TGs Hpgua adrovs Siakwuwde?, 
Soypari(erse eimdv, Theophyl.: so Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 39. 4, p. 295 (ed. 5), though 
apparently not in ed. 6. In either case 
the meaning is practically the same ; in 
the tone of expostulation only is there a 
slight shade of difference. 

21. uh bn x. 7. A.) ‘Handle not, 
nor taste, nor touch;’ examples of the 
doyuatiopds to which they allowed them- 
selves to submit; ‘recitative hae profe- 
runtur ab apostolo, Daven. With re- 
gard to the grammatical association, the 
coarser &/y at the beginning, the inter- 
posed -yedor, and the more delicate Siyps 
at the end might seem to justify the dis- 
tinction of Meyer that the first udé is 
more adjunctive (see notes on Gal. i. 12 
and on Eph. iv. 27), the second more as- 
censive, if such a distinction in so regu- 
lar a sequence as pi)...unde...undé be not 
somewhat precarious; consider Rom. 
xiv. 21, and especially Luke xiv. 21, 
where there is a similar slight. disturb- 
ance of the climax. ‘The essenti.1 char- 
acter of such quasi-adjunctive enumera- 
tions is that the items are not ‘ apte con- 
nexa, sed potius fortuito concursu acce- 
dentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 707. 
With regard to the objects alluded to, 
the interposed yeton and the terms of 
ver. 23 seem certainly to suggest a ref- 
erence of all three verbs to ceremonial 


distinctions in Bpdois and wéois (verse . 


16); see especially Xenoph. Cyr. 1. 8. 
5 (cited by Raph.), where all three verbs 
are used in reference to food, and for ex- 
amples of drrecSa, see Kypke, Obs. p. 
324, Loesn. Obs. p. 372. More minute 
distinctions, e. g. &n, women (Olsh.), 
corpses (Zanch.) ; Siyns, oil (Boehm. ; 
compare Joseph. Gell. 11. 8.3), sacred 
vessels (Zanch.), al., seem very doubt- 
ful and uncertain. On the distinction 


between the stronger &rreoSa: and the 
weaker Svyydvew [OIL, TAT, tango, Pott, 
Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 235], compare 
Trench, Synon. § 17. 

22. & éorivy .T.A.| ‘whieh things, 
almost, seeing they are things, which are 
all to be destroyed in their consumption ;’ 
parenthetical observation of the apostle 
on the essential character of the meats 
and drinks which the false teachers in- 
vested with such ceremonial charac- 
teristics ; ‘ratio ducitur ab ipsa natura 
et conditione harum rerum,’ Davenant : 
they were ordained to be consumed and 
enter into fresh physical combina- 
tions; compare Matthew xv. 17. To 
refer this either to the preceding com- 
mands, ‘quod totum genus precepto- 
rum,’ Aug., Sanderson (Serm. vir. ad 
Pop.], al., or to the preceding clause.as 
the continued statement of the false teach- 
ers, Neand. (Plant., Vol. 1. p. 328), De 
W., al., seems to infringe on the meaning 
of amdxpynots (see Mey.), and certainly 
gives a less forcible turn to the parenthe- 
sis. The objection urged by De Wette, 
and apparently felt in some measure by 
Chrysost. and Theoph. —that St. Paul 
wou'd thus be furnishing an argument 
against restrictions generally, even those 
sanctioned by divine authority, may be 
diluted by observing (a) that a very sim- 
ilar form of argument occurs in 1 Tim. 
iv. 3 sq., and (d) that these restrictions 
and observances are not condemned per 
se, but in relation to the new dispensa- 
tion, in which all ceremonial distinctions 
were done away, and things remanded 
(so to say) to their primary conditions. 
eis pdSopdy] ‘for destruction, decom- 
position,’ the prep. marking the destina- 
tion, and Sopa having apparently a 
simply physical sense; compare Syriac 


vy 
owmddos | area [usus corrupti- 
o ww g 4 ’ 


180 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 22, 23. 


aTOYXpHTEL), KATA Ta évTdApaTa Kat Sidackadlas TOV avSpwHTrar ; 
23 e / 5 / \ 4 / > b] / \ 
atwd éotw dAdyov pev Exovta copias év éSehoSpnoxela Kab 


bilis], and very distinctly Theod., eis 
Kdmpoy yop GmavTa meTaBddAeTa, and 
CEcum. psopd ydp, pnow, brdnerta év 
TE apedponr. TH aT o- 
xpnoet| ‘in ther consumption,’ in their 
being used completely up ; ov cxomeire ws 
povimov TovTwy ovdév, Theod. The com- 
pound aroxp. has here a somewhat similar 
meaning to daxp. (comp. Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s. v.), the prep. amd denoting ‘non 
solum separari aliquid ab aliquo, sed ita 
remoyveri ut esse prorsus desinat,’ Winer, 
de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 53 compare Plu- 
tarch, Cesar, § 58, kowis Epwra dds 
GmokexXpnuevy TH Tapovon, and sce Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 489, where sev- 
eral pertinent examples are collected 
from the eccl. writers. 

kata T& evtdArAu.| ‘according to the 
commandments and teachings of men ;’ fur- 
ther definition and specification of the 
preceding doyyuatifecde ; they had died 
with Christ, they were united with a di- 
vine Deliverer, and ‘vet were ready to 
submit to the ordinances and doctrines 
of conscience-enslaving men. The &- 
dack., .as the exceptional omission of the 
article (Winer, Gram. § 19. 3, p. 118) 
shows, belonged to the same general cat- 
egory as the évrdAu., and are added 
probably by way of amplification ; they 
were submitting to a Soyuatiouds not 
only in its preceptive, but even in its 
doctrinal, aspects ; compare Mey. in loc. 
Alford presses ty‘ aySp. as describing 
the authors ‘as generally human:’ this 
is doubtful; as évrdAw. has the article, 
the principle of correlation requires that 
avep. should have it also: see Middle- 
ton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6. 

23. &tival ‘al which things,’ ‘a set 
of things which;’ in reference to the 
preceding évrdAu. xa} 515., and specifying 
the class to which they belonged. On 
this force of doris, see notes on Gal. iv. 


24. The difference between 6s and doris 
is here very clearly marked ; & (ver. 22) 
points to its antecedents under purely 
objective, &rwa under qualitative and 
generic aspects; see Kriiger, Spracil. 
§ 51. 8. éoriv Ady. 
€éxovra] ‘do have the repute of wisdom,’ 
‘are enjoying the repute of wisdom,’ the 
verb subst. being joined, — not with the 
concluding clause of the verse (Conyb., 
Kadie), but, as every rule of perspicuity 
suggests, with €yovra, and serving to 
mark the regular normal, prevailing char- 
acter of the gxew; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 
5, p. 311. The exact meaning of Adyov 
éxew is somewhat doubtful, as Adyos in 
this combination admits of at least three 
different meanings ; (a) ‘ speciem,’ «xjua, 
Theod., Auth. Ver., De W., compare 
Demosth. Leptin. p. 462, Adyov rwa& exov 
opp. to Wevdos dy pavetn, see Elsner, Obs. 
Vol. 11. p. 265; (8) ‘rationem,’ scil. 
‘ grounds for being considered so,’ Vulg., 


Clarom., and probably Syriac Jato; 
compare Polyb. Hist. xv11. 14. 5, Soxodv 
mavoupyétatov eivat moAby exer Adyov TOD 
gpavrdtarov imdpxew, and other exam- 
ples in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.; (y) 
‘famam,’ scil. ‘has the repute of,’ Mey., 
Alf., and perhaps Chrys., Adyov gnotv, 
ov Sivamiw dpa ode GAnSeay; compare 
Herod. v. 66, domep 5) Adyov exer Thy 
Tlusinv avameioa (cited by Raph.). Of 
these, though in fact all ultimately coin- 
cide, (y) is perhaps to be preferred ; ‘7a 
Ady. éx. sunt res ejusmodi que quidem 
vulgo sapientis nomen habent, sed a 
veri sapieutid absunt longissime,’ Ra- 
phel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535. wy has here 
no corresponding 6¢, but serves to pre- 
pare the reader for a comparison (Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 656) which is involved 
in the phrase Adyov éxew (Adyov ov dbva- 
uv, Chrys.), and is substantiated by the 


-~ 


Cuap. IT. 23. 


COLOSSIANS. 


181 


A Nie F , , 7 > A af 
TaTrewwoppoatyy Kal AaEldig T@pLATOS, OUK EV TLL TLL, TPOS TANG- 


Movi Ths TapKos. 


context; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. e, p. 
507, where other omissions of 5€ are enu- 
merated and carefully classified. 

évy €SecAodpynoketa | ‘in self-imposed 
worship,’ — év pointing to, not the instru- 
ment by which (Mey.), but as usually, 
the ethical domain in which, the Adyos 
copias was acquired, or the substratum 
on which the 7d @xew «. 7. A. takes place ; 
see Winer, Gram. § 48. a, p. 345. The 
word é%eAo%p. is apparently an Gm. Ae- 
you. ; but by a comparison with similar 
compounds éSeAodovAcla, eSeAoKdxnots, 
x. 7. A. (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. Vol. 1. 
p- 778), and with the verb éSeAospnoneiv 
as explained by Suidas (idi@ SeAquatt 
oéBew Tb Soxody)may be clearly assumed 
to mean, ‘an arbitrary self-imposed ser- 
vice,’ — which, as the similar association 
with tame. in ver. 18 seems to suggest, 
was evinced in the Spyonela tay dyyeAwr. 
Tamwetv. kat aperd. cdu.| ‘ lowli- 
ness and disregard, or unsparing treat- 
ment of the body :’ the two other pervert- 
ed elements in which the Adyos codias 
was acquired. On tamew., which here 
also obviously implies a fulse, perverted 
humility, see notes on verse 18. The 
apes. cd. marks the false spirit of as- 
ceticism, the unsparing way (compare 
Diod. Sic. x111. 60, apedeiv cdparos), 
in which they practised bodily austeri- 
ties, the ocwyarict yuuvacia in which 
Jewish Theosophy so emulously in- 
dulged; compare notes on 1 Tim. iv 8. 
The omission of xa) after rare. and the 
reading dpedela (B; [Lachm.], Steig.) 
is strenuously supported by Hofmann, 
Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 64, who takes it 
as an adjective (comp. apeidefws, Apoll.- 
Rhod. 111. 897), but seems both unsatis- 
factory and improbable. 

ob ey Timm K.7.A.| ‘not in any real 
value serving (only) to the satisfying of the 
flesh” Theexplanations of this very ob- 


scure clause are exceedingly numerous. 
With regard to the first portion, two only 
seem to deserve consideration; (a) that 
of the Greek comm., according to which 
Tyu7 is understood to point antithetically 
to the preced. apevd., and to refer to the 
same gen. (ovK ev TUL TE THpaTL XpOYTaL, 
Theophyl.), the clause ov« év tru being 
regarded as a continuance on the nega- 
tive side of what had previously been 
expressed in the positive: éSeA. k. TNs 
were the elements in which the Adyos cogi- 
as was, and riyyA Tie the element in which 
it was not acquired ; (b) that adopted by 
Syr. and appy. Z&th. (Platt), according to 
which tiuwy approaches to the meaning 
of ‘pretium,’ and suggests that there was 
something which might be a true sub- 
stratum for the rd €xew k. T. A., if prop- 
erly chosen, —‘a reputation of wisdom 
evinced in édeA. x. T. A., NOt in any prac- 
tices of true value and honor;’ so Beza, 
Beng., al., and, with slight variations in 
detail, Huther, Meyer, and Neand. Plant- 
ing, Vol i. p. 828 (Bohn). Of these, 
(a) has much to recommend it; as how- 
ever it suggests, if not involves, either a 
very unsatisfactory meaning of mpbs 
mAnou., ‘so that the natural wants of the 
body are satisfied’ (Chrysost., al.), or a 
retrospective connection of the clause 
with éoruy, or, still less likely, with dey- 
patiCecde (Alf.), it seems better to adopt 
(b), to.which also the use of ri, almost, 
‘no value of any kind,’ seems decidedly 
to lean. Tipds TAncHOY HY, 
added somewhat closely, then defines 
gravely and conclusively the real object 
of all these perverted austerities, — ‘the 
satisfying of the unspiritual element, the 
fleshly mind ;’ caprds having a retrospec- 
tive reference to vobs THs capkds in ver. 
18, and contrasting, with great point, the 
means pursued and the end really in 
view ; they were unsparing (aped.) with 


182 
III. 


Mind the things above, for 
your life is hidden with » 

Christ: when he is mani- avo 
fested so shall ye be also. 


the céua, that they might satisfy (mpds 
mAnou.) —the odpt. Syr. and /&th. in- 
sert GAAG before mpds mwAna.; this is not 
necessary ; the exposure of the motive 
is rendered more forcible and emphatic 
by the omission of all connecting parti- 
cles. 


Cuapter III. 1. ei ody] ‘Uf then,’ 
with retrospective reference to ef d7es., 
chap. ii. 20, ody being slightly inferential 
(resurrection with Christ is implied in 
death with Him), but still preserving its 
general meaning of ‘continuation and 
retrospect,’ Donalds. Gr. § 604. The ei 
is not problematical, but logical (Mey.), 
introducing in fact the first member of a 
conditional syllogism ; compare Rom. vy. 
15, and see Fritz, in loc. In such cases, 
instead of diminishing, it really enhances 
the probability of the truth or justice of 
the supposition ; compare notes on Phil. 
4:22; guynyéepanrte] ‘ye 
were raised together, scil. in baptism ; 
not merely in a moral sense (De W.), 
which would render the injunction that 
follows somewhat superfluous: eimdéy, 
Ott ameSavere oly Xp. Sia Tod Bamrioua- 
Tos Sndadh, Kal KaTa Td TLwTdmevov Sods 
voeiy Tt Kal ovynyepsyte (Td yap Bdrric- 
pa, Sowep ia THs KaTaddoews Sdvaror, 
ottw 5 THs avadvoews Thy avdoTacW 
Timo), viv eiodyer x. T.A,, Theoph. ; 
compare Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 220. 
On the force and deep reality of these 
expressions of mystical union with Christ, 
compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 16, 
Vol. 11. p. 164. Td &vo| 
‘the things above:’ all things pertaining 

to the woAtrevya év odpavois, Phil. iii. 20, 
and to the Christian’s true home, the 
4 tw ‘Iepovoadnp, Gal. iv. 26; the con- 
trast being r& emt ris yijs, ver. 2; comp. 


I 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuar. III. 1, 2. 


Ei ov curnyépSnte 76 Xpiote, Ta 

lal ka ¢ HY > 3 a lal 
tyreire; ob 6 Xpiotds éotw ev Sekia TOV 
Ocod caSnpevos' 7 Ta dvw ppoveire, wr) TA ETrt 


Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 322 
(ed. Burt.). ot 6 Xp. «.7.A.] 
‘where Christ is, sitting at the right hand 
of God;’ not exactly, ‘where Christ 
sitteth,’ Auth., as there are really two 
enunciations, ‘ Christ is there, and in all 
the glory of His regal and judiciary pow- 
er;’ ovK Apkéodn S€ TH dy cimeiv, ovdE, 
mpooedniev, ev Sek. 
mA€ov TL arooThon 
Tov vod huey ard THs vis, Theophyl. ; 
comp. Chrys. On the session of Christ 
at the right hand of God as implying 
indisturbance, dominion, and judicature, 
see Pearson, Creed, Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 
828, and on the real and literal sig- 
nificance, Jackson. Creed, Book x1. 
1. The student will find a good Ser- 
mon on this text by Andrewes, Ser- 
mon vitt. Vol. 11. p. 809-822 (A.-C. 
Libr.), and another by Farindon, Ser- 
mon xL11. Volume 11. p. 359 (London, 
1849). 

2.7 tvw ppovetre] ‘mind the 
things above ;? expansion of the preced- 
ing command, gpovety having a fuller 
meaning than (yreiv; they were not on- 
ly querere but sapere. On the force of 
gpoveiv, compare notes on Phil. iii. 15, 
Beveridge, Serm. cxxxvu. Vol. vi. p. 
172 (A.-C. Libr.), and especially the 
able analysis of Andrewes, Serm. V11t. 
Vol. 11. p. 315. Ta emt 
THs. ys] ‘the things on the earth ;’ all 
things, conditions, and interests that be- 
long to the terrestrial ; compare Phil. iii. 
19, of ta emiyera ppovoivytes. There is 
here certainly not (a) any polemical al- 
lusion to the earthly rudiments of the 
false teachers (Theoph., Cicum.), for, 
as Meyer observes, the remaining por- 
tion of the Epistle is not anti-heretical 
but wholly moral and practical, —nor 


ov 6 Xp. éativ: GAAG 
Kadnu. Tod @eov, tva 


’ 


| Cuap. III..3, 4. 


COLGSSIANS. 


183 


n a Pie) / lA \ € \ c a , \ A 
THs yhs. ®ameSavete yap, Kab Son buov KéxpuTtar odv TO 
fal an a iv4 e \ n id \ ¢ Qn 
Xpictd ev TO Oecd * dtav 0 Xpiotos havepwrH, 1) Gor juor, 
) L pels adv avTa havepwrijceae év Oo& 
TOTE Kal Ypels OY AUTG pon) ? 7. 


(b) any special ethical allusion with ref. 
to ver. 5 (Estius), for the antithesis Ta 
&yw obviously precludes all such limita- 
tion. The command is unrestricted and 
comprehensive, ‘ superna curate non ter- 
restria ;’ see Calv. zn /oc., and the sound 
sermon by Beveridge, Serm. Vol. v1. p. 
169 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 

3. ameSdvetre yap| ‘For ye are 
dead, Alf., Wordsw., as- the reference 
seems still to the past act, ch. 20. Co- 
nyb. urges that the associated Kéxpurtat 
shows that the aor. is here used for a 
perfect. Surely this is inexact; the aor. 
may, and apparently does, point to the 
act, the perfect to the state which ensued 
thereon and still continues. The nature 
of 3vfoKw, however, is such as to pre- 
clude any rigorous translation on either 
side. n Cwh buav| ‘your life,’ 
—which succeeded after the amedave- 
me; your real and true life, —not merely 
your ‘ resurrection life,’ Alf. (ris: jueré- 
pas avactdceos Td pvorhpiov, Theod.), 
but, with the tinge of ethical meaning 
which the word (wH, from its significant 
antithesis to Sdvaros, always seems to 
involve (compare Reuss, Theol. Chret. 1v. 
22, Vol. 11. p. 252), ‘your inward and 
heavenly life,’ of which Christ is the es- 
sence, and, so to speak, impersonation 
(ver. 4), and with whom it will at last 
receive all its highest developments, ex- 
pansions, and realizations ; comp. notes 
on 1 Tim.iv.8. Onthe meaning of (w#, 
see the good treatise of Olshausen, Opusc. 
Art. viz. p. 187 sq., and on its distinc- 
tion from Bios, Trench, Synon. § 27. 
KéxpuTtTat obv TG Xp.| ‘hath been 
(avd is) hidden with Christ ;’ its glory 

and highest characteristics are concealed 
from view, — not merely ‘laid up,’ Al- 
ford, but.shrouded in the depths of in- 


ward experiences and the mystery of 
its union with the life of Christ. When 
He is revealed, then the life of which He 
is the source and element will be re- 
vealed in all its proportions and all its 
blessed characteristics : the manifestation 
which is now at best only partial and 
subjective, will then be objective and 
complete; compare the thoughtful re- 
marks of Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. v. 3, 
p- 298. évy TG Ocg| ‘in 
God ;’ He is the element and sphere in 
which the (w? is concealed: in Him, as 
pas oik@v ampooirov (1 Tim. vi-6), as 
the Father in whom is the Eternal Son 
(John i. 18, xvii. 21), and with whom 
He forever reigns (ver. 1), the life of 
which the Son is the essence lies shroud- 
ed and concealed. Considered under 
its inherent relations our (w} is concealed 
év @eg@ ; considered under its coherent re- 
lations it is concealed civ XpiorG ; com- 
pare Meyer in loc., whose interpretation 
of (wi) (‘das ewige Leben’) is, however, 
narrow and unsatisfactory. 

4. pavepway| ‘shall be manifested ;’ 
scil. at His second coming, when He shall 
be seen as He is, and when His present 
concealment shall cease; otre yap ig’ 
budy para, kal ord Tay amioTwY TaVTEX 
A@s ayvoeira, Theod.: compare'2 Peter 
iii. 4. n (oh mar] ‘our 
Life, almost, ‘ being our Life,’ the ‘ pree- 
dicatio,’ as Daven. acutely observes, be- 
ing ‘ causalis non essentialis.’ Christ is 
here termed 7 (wh jjuav, not, however, 
as being merely the author of it (Daven.), 
or the cause of it (Corn. a Lap.), much 
less ‘in the character of it’ (Eadie), but 
as being —our Life itself, the essence 
and the impersonation of it; compare 
Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i.21. Thus Christ is 


-termed 4 éAms judy, 1 Tim. i. 1 (comp. 


184 


Mortify your members and 
the evil principles in which 
ye once walked: put off 
the old man, and put on the 
new, in which all are one in Christ. 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 4, 5: 


5 Nexpoécate ody Ta médn tuav Ta ert Ths 
Ys, Twopvelav, axaSapolav, mdSos, émiSupiav 


5. 7a wéAn buav] So Rec., Lachm., with AC7DEFGKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg., 
Clarom., Syr. (both), Copt., &th. (Pol. and Platt), Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al. 


(Meyer, De Wette). 


The pronoun is omitted by Tisch. (ed. 2, but not ed. 7), Alf, 
with BC!; 17. 67**. 71; Clem. (1), Orig. (5), al. 


The great preponderance of 


MSS., and the accordant testimony of so many Vv. seem to render this otherwise 
not improbable omission here very doubtful. 


Col. i. 27), 4 eiphyn judy, Eph. ii. 14, 
where see notes. The reading 
is very doubtful: jor is adopted by 
Rec., Lachm., and Tisch. with BD*D*E? 
KL; great majority of mss. ; Syr. (both), 
al.; Or., Gicum., al. On the other hand, 
tuay is supported by CD!E1FG; 5 mss. ; 
Vulg., Clarom., Copt. [quoted by Tisch. 
and Alf. for the other reading], Goth., 
Eth. (Pol. and Platt); many Latin and 
Greek Ff. As judy is far less easy to 
account for than juéy, which might have 
come from ver. 3 or from the dpets in the 
present verse, critical principles seem 
to decide for the reading of the text. 
kat duets] ‘yealso;’ ye Colossian 
converts, as well as all other true Chris- 
tians. The more verbally exact opposi- 
tion would have been ‘ your hidden life’ 
(comp. Fell); but this the apostle per- 
haps designedly neglects, to prevent (#7 
being applied, as it has been applied, 
merely to the resurrection life. Alford 
urges this clause as fixing that meaning 
to (wf; but surely the avoidance of the 
regular antithesis seems to hint the very 
reverse ; duets payep. is the natural sequel 
of your inward and heavenly life, and is 
its true development. 

év 86&n] ‘in glory;’? compare Rom. 
viii. 17, elmep cuumdoxopuey iva Kal ovy- 
SotacdGuev. The ddéa will be the issue, 
development, and crown of the hidden 
life, and will be displayed both in the 
material (1 Cor. xv. 43) and immaterial 
portions of our composite nature: ‘ hu- 


jus seternze vite promissa gloria sita est 
in duplici stola ; in stola anime et stola 
corporis, Daven. The conjunction of 
body and soul, soul and spirit, will then 
be complete, harmonious, and indissolu- 
ble; (w} will become 7 dvtws (wh, and 
will reflect the glories of Him who is its 
element and essence : comp. Olsh. Opuse. 
p- 195 sq. 

5. vexpdcate ody] ‘ Make dead 
then:’ ‘as you died, and your true life 
is hidden with Christ, and hereafter to 
be developed in glory, act conformably 
to it, —let nothing live inimical to such 
a state, kill at once (aor.) the organs and 
media of a merely earthly life.’ Ody is 
thus, as commonly, retrospective and 
collective (‘ad ea que antea revera pos- 
ita lectorem revocat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 719), serving to enhance the perti- 
nent reference of vexpdcare to the amreSd- 
vere and 4 (wh tudv which have preced- 
ed. Ta MEAN Smav] ‘your 
members,’ the portions of your bodily or- 
ganization (compare Rom. vii. 5) gud the 
instruments and media of sinfulness and 
lusts ; compare with respect to the pre- 
cept, Rom. viii. 18, Gal. y. 24, and with 
respect to the image, and form of expres- 
sion, Matth. v. 29,50. These-are more 
specifically defined as ta em tis yas 
(compare ver. 2), as defining the sphere 
of their activities (‘ ubi suum habent pab- 
ulum,’ Beng.), and as justifying the pre- 
ceding command. 
mopvelav kal axasapotay] ‘for- 


Cuar. III. 5, 6. COLOSSIANS. 


185 


Kaki, Kat THY TAeoveElay iris é€ativ eidwroraTpela, * SV & 


6. ém robs viods ametd.] Tisch. [Zachm.], and Alf. omit these words with B; 
Sahid., 2th. (Pol., but not Platt); Clem. (1), Ambrosiast. (text). On the one 
hand, it is certainly possible that they may have been inserted from the paral- 
lel passage, Eph. vi. 6; still, on the other, the overwhelming weight of external 
evidence, and the probability, that in two Epistles where so much is alike, even 
individual expressions might be repeated, seem to render the omission on such evi- 


dence more than doubtful. 


nication and uncleanness ;’ specific and 
generic products of the 7a én) rijs vijs 
wéAn on the side of lust and carnality ; 
compare Eph. v. 3. There is no need 
to supply mentally vexpéoare (Fritz. 
Rom. Vol. 1. p. 379), or to introduce 
paraphrastically a prep., ‘ a scortatione,’ 
J@th.; the four accusatives stand in an 
appositional relation to Ta méAn Kk. T. A., 
as denoting their evil prodticts and op- 
erations ; see Wiuer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, 
and compare Matth. Gr. § 432. 3. 
Tacos emisuu. karhy| ‘lustfulness, 
evil concupiscence ;’ further and more ge- 
neric manifestations. It does not seem 
proper,on the one hand, to extend 7430s to 
‘motus vitiosos, quales sunt éxSpat, épets, 
Gado, «. T. A.,’ Grot., or, on the other, 
to limit it to more frightful exhibitions 
(Rom. i. 26, 27): it points rather, as the 
evolution of thought seems to require, to 
‘the disposition toward lust,’ Olsh., the 
‘morbum libidinis,’ Beng., — in a word, 
not merely to lust, but to lustfulness ; 
mdsos 7 Avcoa TOD odhuatos, Kal wowep 
mupeTds, i) Tpadpa, 7) GAA vdoos, Threoph. 
The last, émiSvpia karh, is still more in- 
clusive and generic ; idod yerik@s 7) way 
etre, Chrys. Thy TAEO- 
vettav| ‘ Covetousness,’ — with the arti- 
cle, as the notorious form of sin (‘die 
~bekannte, « hauptsichlich. vermeidende 
Unsittlichkeit, Winer, Gr. § 18. 8, p. 
106), that ever preserves so frightful an 
alliance with the sins of the flesh. There 
seems no reason whatever to depart from 
the proper sense of the word ; it is nei- 
ther specially ‘base gains derived from 


uncleanness’ (comp. Storr, Flatt, al.), 
nor generically, ‘insatiabilem cupidita- 
tem voluptatum turpium,’ Estius, ‘ the 
whole longing of the creature,’ Trench 
(Synon. § 24, —a very doubtful expan- 
sion), but simply ‘ covetousness,’ ‘ inex- 
plebilem appetitum animi quierentis di- 
vitias, Daven. (compare Theod. The- 
oph.), a sin that especially depends on 
the 7a ém ris ys (‘maxime effigit ad 
terram,’ Beng.), and makes, not sen- 
sational cravings per se, but the means 
of gratifying them, the objects of its in- 
terest; see especially Miiller, Doctr. of 
Sin, 1. 1. 8. 2, Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark), 
and notes on Ephes. iy. 20. 

htis éotiy eidwa.| ‘the which is, 
seeing it is, idolatry ;’ explanatory force 
of Sorts, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The 
remark of Theod. is very pertinent, ézet- 
3} Toy pappwva Kipioy 6 owThp mpoonyd- 
pevoe DiddoKwv, s 6TH Tddet Tis WAEo- 
veklas dSovAetwy as Sedy Thy TAOVTOV Tia. 
The very improbable reference of jjrts to 
pean (Harl. on Eph. v. 5), or to all that 
precedes (Heinr.), is rightly rejected by 
Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. 

6. 30 &] ‘on account of which sins ;’ 
clearly not 8? &, sc. wéAn (Bahr), but in 
reference to ‘ peccata preecedentia aliaque 
flagitia,’ Grot.: compare notes on Eph. 
v.6. The reading is doubtful: 6 is found 
in C1D!EIFG; Claroman., Sang; @ in 
ABC2D2D2E2KL; al., and apparently 
rightly adopted by Lachmann and Tisch. 
after Rec. Though an emendation is 
not improbable, the preponderance of 
external evidence seems too distinct to be 


24 


186 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 6-8. 


Epxetat 1) opyi) Tov Oeod eri Tovs viods THs ameSelas’ 7 év ois 


al f 
Kai wpmels TrepleTaTHnoaTé ToOTE, 


safely reversed. EpxeTatl 
‘doth come;’ emphatic, both position 
and tense. The present hints at the en- 
during principles of the moral govern- 
ment of God; see notes on Eph. v. 5. 
n Opyn Tov Oeo0d| Not only here, 
but hereafter ; iad ) wéAAovea opyy Kad 7 
ev TG viv aiG@vt ToAAdKIS KaTaAapBdvouct 
Tovs Toovrovs Theoph. Meyer rejects 
this, but without sufficient reason ; see 
notes on Eph. v. 6. 
Tovs viovs THs amweLa.| ‘the sons 
of disobedience ;? those who reject and 
disobey the principles and practice of the 
Gospel ; see notes on Eph. v. 6, where the 
same expression occurs in the same com- 
bination, and on the force of the Hebra- 
istic circumlocution, notes on 2b. ii. 2. 

7. év ofs| ‘among whom,’ scil. viots 
THS ameselas, —not neuter ‘in which,’ 
in reference to the foregoing vices: see 
Eph. ii. 3, év ois kal jets averrpadnuer, 
which, with the present (longer) reading, 
seems to leave no room for doubt. The 
objection of Olsh. that the Colossians 
were still walking among the viots ris 
ameiy. aS converts, seems easily answered 
by observing that mepurareiv, St. Paul’s 
favorite verb of moral motion (only here 
and 2 Thess. iii. 11 with persons), seems 
always used by him to denote an actual 
participation in a course or manner of 
life ; contrast John xi. 54, 
e¢ate ev tovtrous| ‘ye were living in 
these sins,’ ‘ these things were the sphere 
of your existence and activities ;’ the 
verb é(jre referring to the preceding 
ames. (ver. 3), and its tense portraying 
‘the then continuing state ; compare Jelf, 
Gr. § 401.3. Huther and others regard 
TovTois as masc.: this does not seem 
satisfactory, as dre ée¢. would be but a 
weak and tautologous explanation of the 
preceding év ois mepier. wore, and as jy 
év (except in its deeper meanings, e. 9. 


dte entre év trovrou: 8 vi dé 


Civ év Xp. x. 7. A., Rom. vi. 11, Gal. ii. 
20) is always used by St. Paul with 
things ; compare Rom. vi. 2, Gal. ii. 20, 
Phil. i. 22, Col. ii. 20. See the exam- 
ples collected by Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
327), Civ év ’Odvoccia, ev ppovtiow, ev 
Adyots, ev apeTH, ev pidrogopia x. T. A., in 
all of which the non-personal substan- 
tives similarly define the sphere to which 
the activities of life were confined; see 
also examples in Wetst. in doc. The 
reading of Rec. avrots [D*E2FGKL] has 
insufficient critical support. 

8. vuvl d& awmddeade] but Now lay 
aside ;’ emphatic exhortation suggested 
by their present state, the forcible yup) 
(Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. 24) standing 
in sharp opposition to the preceding rére, 
On the figurative aré%eoSe, opp. 
to évdtcagSe, compare notes on Eph. 
iv. 22. The translation of Eadie, ‘ye 
too have put off,’ perhaps suggested by 
a misunderstanding of Auth., can only 
be regarded as an oversight ; such mis- 
takes, however, seriously weaken our 
confidence in this otherwise useful writer 
as a sound grammatical expositor. 
kal duets] ‘ye also,’ ye as well as 
other Christians ; the xa) putting them 
here in contrast with their fellow-con- 
verts, as in ver. 7 with their fellow-heath- 
ens; comp. notes on Piil. iv. 12. 
ta wavtal ‘the whole of them:’ all 
previously (rovras, ver. 7), and hereaf- 
ter to be mentioned. Winer (Gr. § 18. 
1, p. 98) refers ra mévra, with an inten- 
sive force, only to what had been already 
adduced: the enumeration which fol- 
lows seems to require a more compre- 
hensive and prospective reference; see 
Meyer in loc. So similarly Syr., Goth. 
(Eth. omits), ‘hae omnia’ (compare 
Theod.), except that this is perhaps too 
exclusively prospective. There is no 
full stop after this word in Tisch., as is 


OTe. 


Cuap. III. 8,9. 


COLOSSIANS. 


187 


tal , 
amroSeoSe kal tpels Ta TavTa, opynv, Supmov, Kakiav, PLacdnpiar, 
aicxporoylav, €x Tov aTOpaTos Uuov, * p1) Yrevdeae Eis GAAHAOUS, 


asserted by Alf., nor apparently in any 
edition. kaktlav| ‘ malice,’ 
‘badness of heart,’ the evil habit of the 
mind as contrasted with movypia, the 
more definite manifestation of it ; comp. 
Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. § 11. 
On the distinction between the preceding 
‘opy) (the more settled state) and Suuds 
(the more eruptive and temporary), see 
notes on Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. 
§ 37; add also Gicum., who correctly 


remarks, ore yap Supds.... etapis tis 
kal dvaSuulacis oketa ToD mdSous, dpy) bE 


Eupovos AUTH. Brachonmtav 
may be either against God or against 
men, according to the context (see notes 
on 1 Tim. i. 18); here the associated 
vices seem to limit the reference to the 
latter; Tas Aodoplas ottw Aéye:, The- 
oph.; see notes on the very similar pas- 
sage, Eph. iv. 31. aiaxporoyiar| 
‘coarse (reproachful) speaking. It is 
somewhat doubtful whether we are to 
adopt (a) the more limited meaning 
‘ turpiloquium,’ Claroman., sim. Vulg., 
Syr., ‘aglaitivaurdein,’ Goth., turpitu- 
do,’ AXthiop.; or () the more general, 
‘foul-mouthed abusiveness, Trench 
(comp. Copt., where, however, it seems 
confounded with pwpodoyia), ‘ schand- 
bares Reden,’ Meyer. As aioxp. is an 
ar. Aeydu. in N. T., and does not occur 
in LXX., and as both interpretations 
have good lexical authority, —the for- 
mer, Xenoph. Laced. v. 6, Poll. Onomast. 
Iv. 106, Clem.-Alex. Ped. 11. 6, comp. 
Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 136; 
Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535; the lat- 
ter, Polyb. Hist. vi1z. 13. 8, and xxx1. 
10. 4, where it is associated with Aoidopia, 
—the context alone must decide. As 
this appy. refers mainly to sins against a 
neighbor (compare yer. 9), the balance 
seems in favor of (b), according to which 
aicxp. will be an extension of BAacd., 


and will imply all coarse and foul- 
mouthed language, whether in abuse or 
otherwise. 
#aros is not to be referred solely to 
aicxpoa. (/Eth.), but to the two preced- 
ing substantives, aréSecde being men- 
tally supplied. It seems doubtful wheth- 
er the addition marks specially the pollu- 


€k TOU oT 6- 


tion (pumot yap Td eis 5ufoAoyiay cod Te- 
mommevov otdua, Gicum., comp. Chrys.), 
or the unsuitableness (Mey.) of the ac- 
tions which are here described : the lat- 
ter is perhaps slightly the most probable ; 
comp. James iii. 10. 

9. wh Wetvdease] ‘donotlie;’ pres., 
do not indulge in the practice. The ad- 
dition eis aAAnAous specifies the objects 
toward which the practice was forbidden 
(compare Winer, Gram. § 49. a, p. 353), 
and stamps it as a social wrong. On 
the frightful character of untrutbfulness, 
and its evolution from selfishness and 
lust, see especially Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 
1-°1./8.)2) Vol 1p. .171 sq. (Clark). 
It seems best with Lachm., Tisch., and 
apparently most modern editors, to place 
only a comma between ver. 8 and 9. 
amekdvadmevor| ‘ seeing that ye have 
put off, Auth. ; causal participle, giving 
the reason for the precept, and in point 
of time being prior to (Meyer), not 
contemporaneous with (‘ exspoliantes,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.), the preceding aor. infin. 
amosecse. Such a reference is not su- 
perfluous or inappropriate (De W.); the 
part. serves suitably to remind them that 
the condition into which they had now 
entered rendered a selfish and untruthful 
life a self-contradiction. To consider 
émexd. as beginning a new period, inter- 
rupted and resumed in ver. 12, as Hof-" 
mann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 268, seems 
very harsh and improbable. On the 
double compound azekd. see notes on 
ch. ii. 11. Tov wadkatdy 


188 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 10. 


, > 
amexkduvcdpevot Tov Tadaioyv dvSpwrov avy Tais mpakeow avTov, 


10 A > \ \ lA is ? s > > / > 
Kab EVOUTA[LEVOL TOV VEOV TOV AVAKALVOVLEVOY ELS ETTLYYMOW KAT 


&v&p.| ‘the old man;’ not merely thy 
mpotépay wod.telay, Theod., but, with a 
more individualizing reference, our for- 
mer unconverted self, our state before 
regeneration ; see notes on Eph. iv. 22. 
Davenant (comp. Calv.) refers the term 
to the ‘insita naturz nostr corruptio,’ 
-—a special and polemical reference, to 
which the context, which seems to point 
simply to their ante-Christian, as con- 
trasted with their present, state (tdére, 
yuri), seems to yield no support. 
ovv tats mp.] ‘with his deeds;’ 
slightly explanatory, marking the prac- 
tical character of the developments of 
the madaids &vSpwros ; comp. Gal. v. 24. 
10. kal évd. tov véor| ‘and have 
put on the new man;’ closely connected 
with the preceding clause, and presenting, 
on the positive side, the act succeeding 
to the dmexd. on the negative. 
&v&p. stands in contrast with the madads 
as specifying the newly-entered and fresh 
state of spiritual conditions after conver- 
sion and regeneration. In Eph. iv. 23 
the term is xaivds, as marking rather the 
new state in respect of quality ; compare 
Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 59, notes on Eph. 
iii. 16, iv. 24. It is not improba- 
ble that the reference in the two passages 
is slightly different, there, (Eph.) as the 
hortatory tone suggests, the reference is 
primarily to renovation ; here, as the ar- 
gumentative allusion seems to imply, 
primarily to regeneration, yet in neither, 
as the noticeable combinations (dvave- 
ovovat—Kawdy &vdp., véov t&vdp.— Tov 
avaxaw.) further suggest, is the reference 
exclusive. On the distinction, see Wa- 
terland, Regen. Vol. 1v. p. 433 sq., com- 
pare Trench, Synon. § 18. 
tov avakatv.| ‘whois being renewed ;’ 
characteristic, not merely of dydSpo- 
mov (De W.), but of the véov &vSpwrorvs 
as the prominence of the epithet clearly 


The véos 


requires. This process of dvakatvwots, 
of which the causa instrumentalis and 
agent (Tit. iii. 5, compare Eph. iv. 23) 
is the Holy Spirit, is represented as con- 
tinually going on; compare 2 Cor. iv. 
16, 6 €omSev (t%v3p.) avaravotra juepa 
kat nuéepa. The prep. ava appears to 
mark restoration to a former, not neces- 
sarily a primal, state; see Winer, de 
Verb. Comp. 111. p. 10, compare notes on 
Eph. iv. 23. eis éemiyvactr| 
‘unto complete knowledge,’ apparently of 
God, and the mystery of redemption 
(tod @cod ka Tay Selwv, Theoph.) ; com- 
pare ch. i. 9, ii. 2, Ephes. i. 17; “in eo 
quod ait qui renov. in agnitionem, demon- 
strabat quoniam ipse ille qui ignorantiz 
erat homo, id est, ignorans Deum, per 
(%) eam quee in eum est agnitionem ren- 
ovatur,’ Iren. Her. vy. 12. On the full 
meaning of émlyv. (‘ accurata cognitio’), 
see notes on EHph.l. ¢., and compare on 
Col. ii. 2. This was the object towards 
which the avaraw. tended (not the sphere 
in which, Auth., Copt.),—the result 
which it was designed to attain; comp. 
Eph. iv. 13. Kat eikova 
Kk. T.A.] ‘after the image of Him that 
created him.’ By a comparison with the 
similar and suggestive passage, Eph. iv. 
23, there can scarcely be a doubt that 


‘this clause is to be connected with dava- 


kaw., not with émlyywow (Meyer, comp. 
Hofm , Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 252), —acon- 
struction grammat. admissible (see Win. 
Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), but not exegetically 
satisfactory. Kara will thus point to the 
‘norma’ or model (notes on Gal. iv. 28), 
and the eixéy tod ric. to the image of 
God (Theod.), not of Christ (Chrysost. ; 
compare Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. 
p- 392, Clark), in which the first man 
was created, which was lost by sin, but 
‘is to be restored again by a real though 
not substantial change,’ Pearson, ‘Creed, 


Cuap, III. 11, 12. 


COLOSSIANS. 


189 


elxova Tov KTicavTos avTov: 1! dou ove vu” EXXAnv Kab Iovsdaios, 

TeptToun Kat axpoBvotia, BapPapos, Xxvsys, Soddos, édevSepos, 
ral tA 

Ga Ta TaVTA Kai ev TacW XpiaTos. 


Put on mercy, be forgiving 
and loving, and let the 


2 ’HvdtcacSe obv, ws éxdEeKTOL ToD Ocod 


peace of Godrulein you. Sing aloud, and in your hearts, to God, and give thanks. 


Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 149 (ed. Burt.) ; ‘in, 
eo quod dicit secundum imag. conditoris 
recapitulationem manifestavit ejus hom- 
inis qui in initio secundum imaginem 
factus est Dei,’ Iren. Her. v. 12, comp. 
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 11. 2, p. 51, 
who conceives that with the spiritual, a 
physical depravation of the image was 
also included. To assert that a refer- 
ence to a restoration of the image of God 
in the first creation involves ‘an idea 
foreign to Scripture’ (Alf., comp. Miil- 
ler, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. p. 393, Clark), 
seems somewhat sweeping ; see notes on 
Eph. iv. 24, and the passages collected 
from the early eccl. writers in Bull, Lng. 
Works, Dise. v. p. 478 sq., and especial- 
ly p. 492. .On the meaning of cixay, see 
Trench, Synon, 15. aut dy] 
Scil. véoy avdp.; not merely aySp. (De 
W.), which seems opposed to the logical 
and grammatical connection, and is not 
required by the preceding interpretation. 
Whether God be defined as 6 xticas in 
reference to the first, or to the second 
creation (avdxrio1s, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 
11. p. 80, Burt.), does not alter the doc- 
trinal truth involved in the words — 
‘quod perdidimus in Adam, id est se- 
cundum imaginem et similitudinem esse 
Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu recipimus,’ Ire- 
neus, Her. 111. 18: 

11. drov] ‘where;’? ‘qua in re’ 
(‘apud quem,’ @th.), scil. in which 
condition of aréxdvois of the old, and 
évdvois of the new man; compare Xen- 
ophon, Mem. 111. 5. 1, and Kiihner, zn 
loc., cited (but incorrectly) by Meyer. 
ob €vi| ‘there is not ;? see notes on 
Gal. iii. 28, where the grammatical char- 
acter of this contraction is briefly dis- 


cussed. “EAAnY kad lovd.] 
‘Greek and Jew;’ antithesis involving 
national distinctions, followed by a sec- 
ond (mepir., kad ap.) involving ritual 
characteristics, and by a climax (BdpB., 
xv.) in reference to habits and civili- 
zation (‘Scythe barbaris barbariores,’ 
Beng., Bpaxd tév Snpiwy diapépovtes, Jo- 
seph. contr. Ap. 11. 37; see examples in 
Wetst. in /oc.), and lastly, by a third un- 
connected antithesis (SodA0s, éAevS.) in- 
volving social relations. Between the 
last two Zachm. inserts kai, with ADIE 
FG; 3 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.: the 
external authority is fair, but the proba- 
bility of a conformation to the preced- 
ing very great. The addition of kal by 
D'EIFG after BapB. seems a clear inter- 
polation, thus rendering the testimony of 
the same MSS. of doubtful value in the 
next pair. To insert ‘and’ in transla- 
tion (Scholef. Hints, p. 113) seems quite 
unnecessary. GAA TH 
mdvra «.7.A.| ‘but Curist is all and 
in all; similar in meaning to mdyres 
duets els eort &v Xp. Ino., Galat. iii. 28, 
but with a somewhat more comprehen- 
sive enunciation: ‘ Christ’ (placed with 
emphasis at the end, Jelf, Gram. § 902, 
2) is the aggregation of all things, dis- 
tinctions, ‘prerogatives, blessings, and 
moreover is in all, dwelling in all, and 
so uniting all in the common element of 
Himself; mdvra tuiv 6 Xpicrds @oras, kar 
atloua Kal yévos, kal év macw butv avtds, 
Chrys. For examples of eiva: ta mdvta 
or mdyra [as AC, and many mss. in 
this place] in ref. to an individual, see 
the very large collection in Wetstein on 
1 Cor. xv. 28. 

12. €vdtcoacSe obr| ‘ Puton then;’ 


190 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuar. Tf. 19,593. 


Grytou Kat HyaTrn evo, omNayyva oirrippod, xpnorérnra, TATED 
voppoovyny, mTpaiTnTa, paxposuplav, a8 AVEXOMEVOL GXAnA@V Kab 


exhortation naturally following from the 
fact that the véos &vSpwros which in- 
volved all the ahove blessings had been 
put on; ‘as you have put on the new 
man, put on all its characteristic quali- 
ties.’ The odv has thus appy. more 
of its reflexive force ; ‘it takes up what 
has been said and continues it,’ Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 192; compare notes on Phil. 
rales &s éxr. Tod Ocod] 
“as chosen ones of, God ;’ as being men 
who enjoy and value so great and so 
singular a blessing as to have been called 
out of heathen darkness to the knowledge 
of Christ; compare Tit. i. 1. Meyer 
acutely calls attention to the fact that és 
éxdexTo) echoes the preceding argumen- 
tative aexduc., and thus stands in logi- 
cal and exegetical connection with what 
precedes. It is doubtful whether ayo 
xa) iyyanw. are to be regarded as used 
substantively (‘ ut sancti et dilecti,’ Acth., 
—Pol., but not Platt), and as co-ordi- 
nate to, or as simple predicates to, the 
preceding éxAckrol rod Ocod. The pure 
substantival use of the latter expression 
in St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. viii. 33, Tit. 
i. 1, compare 2 Tim. ii. 10), coupled 
with the fact that the force of the exhor- 
tation rests on their character as éxAexTol, 
not as being &y:ot xa) jryam., renders the 
latter connection most plausible; so 
Beng., and after him Mey., and the ma- 
jority of modern editors and expositors. 
Chrysost. and Theoph. appear to have 
regarded them as three attributes; so 
Daven., Huther, al. 

omrdyxva oiktippod] ‘bowels of 
mercy ;’ bowels which are characterized 
by, are the seat of mercy, the gen. being 
that of the ‘ predominating quality,’ and 
probably falling under the general head 
of the genitive possessivus ; see Scheuerl. 
Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115, and compare Luke 
i. 78, omadyxva éddovs. The expression 


is probably a little more emphatic than 
the simple oixripuyods (Heb. x. 28), or the 
more common @Aeos: ovK elmev EAcor, 
GAN éudavtixdrepoy ia rev 500, Chrys. 
For exx. of the tropical use of owAdyxva, 
which, however, is here not necessarily 
required (compare Meyer), sce Philip- 
pians i. 18, ii, 1, and notes in loce. 
The plur. oi«tipydv (Rec.) has only the 
support of K; mss. ; Theod., al., and is 
rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. 
xpnaortdétntal ‘kindness:’ ‘benevo- 
lence and sweetness of disposition as 
shown in intercourse with one another; ’ 
joined in Tit. iii. 4 with piravSpomla, . 
and in Rom. xi. 22 opp. to amrotopia ; 
see notes on Gal. y. 22. 
tatetvoppoa.| ‘ lowliness (of mind)? 
the thinking léwly of ourselves because 
we are so; dv tamewds is, Kal evvonons 
mis dy was éoHSns, apopyhy mpds apeTHv 
AauBdves Thy wvhwny, Chrys. on Eph. iv. 
2, here more exact than in his definitions 
collected in Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. On the 
true meaning of this word see the valua- 
ble remarks of Neander, Planting, Vol: 
1. 483, Trench, Synon. § 42, and notes 
on Eph. iv. 2 rpaitrntal 
‘ meekness,’ in respect of God, and toward 
one another; see notes on Galat. v. 23, 
and on Eph. iv. 2, in which latter pas- 
sage it occurs in exactly the same posi- 
tion with respect to ramew. and waxposu- 
pla. Eadie objects to the primary refer- 
ence to God, but apparently without suf- 
ficient reason : that rpairns is frequently 
used in purely human relations is quite 
true (compare Titus iii. 2, pair. mpds 
mavTas avSpémrous), but that its basis is a 
meek acceptance of God’s dealings with 
us seems clearly shown in Matth, xi. 29, 
where it is an attribute of the Saviour, 
and in Gal. vi. 1, and perhaps 1 Cor. iv. 
21 and 2 Tim. ii. 25, where a sense of 
dependence on God forms the very 


Cuap. III. 13, 14. 


COLOSSIANS. 


191 


t e A 32 if; ” , \ ae 

xapifomevor éEavtois, édv Tis TMpos Twa exn poudyy, KaY@s Kal 6 
an \ a fal 

Xpwotos éxapicato buiv ovtws Kal tpelss 4 eri waow S€ TovTas 


groundwork of the exhortation. In such 
passages mere gentleness seems quite 
insufiicient. On pakposvuula opp. 
to dfvSsuuia (James i. 19), see notes on 
Eph. iv. 2. 

13. &vexdmevot GAA.] ‘ forbearing 
one another ;’ exhibition of the last two, 
and perhaps more particularly of the 
last, of the above-mentioned virtues ; com- 
pare Eph. iv. 2, werd paxpod., avexduevor 
GAA. ev aydrn. There does not seem 
any necessity for enclosing the whole 
verse (Griesb., Lachm., Buttm.), nor even 
Kadws kal...tuets (Winer, Gr. § 64, ed. 
5), in a parenthesis. ‘he structure and 
sequence of thought seem uninterrupted ; 
while the first participial clause expands 
the preceding substantives, the second is 
enhanced by an adverbial clause which 
in its second member carries with it the 
preceding participle xapi(duevor ; see 
Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p: 499, ed. 6. 
xaprCdmevor Eavtots| ‘forgiving 
each other ;? compare Epli.iv. 382. The 
change to the reflexive pronoun in two 
members so perfectly similar (ph.  e. 
is a little different) is perhaps not acci- 
dental; while aAAfjAwy marks an act to 
be done by one Christian to his fellow 
Christian, éavrots may suggest the per- 
formance of an act faintly resembling 
that of Christ’s, namely, of each one to- 
ward all,—yea even to themselves in- 
cluded (‘ vobismet ipsis,’ Vulg.), Chris- 
tians being members of one another ; 
boa ty év TH evepyereiy Toiapev Erépous, 
KaA@s Tatra, kal dia To TéAOS Kal Sid Td 
ovoeocemovs judas elvat, wadAoy eis Tuas 
avapepera, Origen on Eph. l.c. (Cramer, 
Cat. Vol. 1. p. 811), here perhaps more 
appropriate. 
‘ (ground of) blame.’ This form is an 
Gat Acydu. in the N. T., but, especially 
in combination with é¢yw, sufficiently 
common in classical Greek ; see exam- 


ponphyy 


ples in Wetstein in Joc., and in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. The glosses péupw 
[D1E ?] and dépyiv [FG] are obviously 
suggested by the non-appearance of the 
word elsewhere in the N. T. or in the 
LXX. kKadva@s kal 6 Xp.] 
“even as Christ also forgave you ;’ comp. 
ch. ii. 18, where the same divine act is, 
as it would there seem, similarly attrib- 
uted to Christ; contrast Eph. iv. 32; 
where it is referred to 6 Ocbs év Xp. KaSdas 
(comp. on Gal. iii. 6), associated with 
the «at of comparison (Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 635) and balanced by the fol- 
lowing o¥tws ral, here simply introduces 
an example (sipetoSe troy Acométny, The- 
od.): in Eph. /. c., as the imperatival 
structure suggests, it has more of an 
argumentative tinge; see notes in loc. 
The reading is slightly doubtful : Kupuos 
is adopted by Lachm. with ABD!IFG ; 1 
mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.; Aug.al., but 
is not improbably due to some attempts 
at conformation to Eph. iv. 32. 

kal duets] Scil. xapiCduevor, the struc- 
ture remaining participial : see Winer, 
Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The principal Vv. 


> 
Syr. (QO. [condonate]), Clarom. 


(‘ita et vos facite’), Goth. (‘taujaip’), 
ZEth. (‘ facite’), and Theod. supply the 
imperative, which in some MSS. [D1E! 
FG: al., roveire| is actually expressed : 
this, however, certainly seems at vari- 
ance with the structure, and interrupts 
the otherwise easy sequence of clauses ; 
so rightly De Wette and Meyer. On 
the double xa) in sentences composed of 
correlative members, see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 635, and notes on Ephes. v. 
23, where the usage is briefly investi- 
gated. 

14. dm) macy Sé rodbTois] ‘bul 
over all these things ;’ not, as in Eph. vi. 
14 (see notes in loc.), with a simple 


192 


N > 7, aoe! \ z, 5 
THV AYATHV, 0 ETTLY TUYOETMOS 


force of accession or superaddition, Syr. 


OLS aS oe [cum his om- 


nibus|, Auth., but, as the more distinct 
expression and especially the foregoing 
image seem to require, with a semi-local 
force (‘ super,’ Vulg., ‘ufar,’ Goth.), the 
dative with ém as usual conveying the 
idea of closer and less separable connec- 
tions ; see notes on ph. ii. 20, but trans- 
pose (ed. 1) the accidentally misplaced 
‘latter’ and ‘ former.’ Love toward all 
(comp. on Phil. i. 9) was thus to be the 
garb that was to be put on over all the 
other elements in the spiritual é&dvors. 

3] ‘which (element) ;’ neuter, the ante- 
cedent being viewed under an abstract 
and generalized aspect; see Jelf, Gram. 
§ 820. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 7. 9. 
The reading is not perfectly certain ; 
qtis (Rec.) is fairly supported [D?D3E 
KL; many Ff.], and is certainly in ac- 
cordance with St. Paul’s (explanatory) 
use of the indef. relative in similar pas- 
sages; still the probability of a gram- 
matical gloss seems here so great, that 
the reading of Lachm. and Tisch. is to be 
distinctly preferred. 

avvSecuos THS TEAELSTHTOS| ‘the 
bond of perfectness,’ Auth. ; not ‘ of com- 
pleteness,’ Alf., which would be a more 
suitable translation of 6AoKAnpla ; comp. 
Trench, Synon. § 22. The genitival re- 
lation has been somewhat differently ex- 
plained ; the abstract gen. may be (a) 
the gen. of quality, in which case reAetdr. 
would be little more than an epithet, 
‘the most perfect bond,’ Hamm., Grot., 
and even Green, Gram. p. 247; (b) the 
gen. of content, ‘amor complectitur vir- 
tutum universitatem,’ Bengel, compare 
Bull, Exam. Cens. 11. 5,—ijs rededr. 
marking that which the odtvd. enclosed 
within it, De W., Olsh., compare Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 242; or (c) the genit. 
objecti; tis tedeiér. being that which 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 14, 1), 
a , 15 a ye omer 
THS TENELOTHTOS. Kal 7) ELpnvn 


is held together by it, and on which it 
exercises its conjunctive power; mayTa 
exetva ality ovodryyet, Theophyl.: so 


° 

Chrys., Theod., apparently Syr. Lops 
[cinctorium], and more recently Steig. 
and Meyer. Of these (c) has clearly the 
advantage, as not involving either a 
doubtful genitive or an unsatisfactory, if 
not indemonstrable meaning of cvvdec- 
pos (comp. Meyer) ; as, however, it as- 
signs a questionable collective force to 
TeAcLOTNS, SCil. TA THY TeAELOTYNTA ToLOdY- 
za, Chrys., Theoph., it seems more ex- 
act to regard the genitive as, (d) a gen. 
subject belonging to the general category 
of the gen. possess.; love is the bond 
which belongs to, is the distinctive fea- 
ture of perfection : contrast Eph. iy. 2, 
and compare notes in loc. The 
omission of the article may be due to 
the verb substantive ; see Middleton, Gr. 
Art. 111. 8. 2, p. 43. (ed. Rose). 

15. eipvn Tod Xp.| ‘the peace of 
Christ ;’ gen. auctoris, or perhaps rather 
originis (Hartung, Casus, p.17, see on 
ch. i. 23), ‘the peace which comes from 
Him who is our peace (Ephes. ii. 14), 
and who solemnly left His peace to His 
church’ (John xiv. 27); éxetvny (eiph- 
ynv) hv 6 Xpiords apijxey adtds, Chrys. 
The peace of Christ must not be restrict- 
ed merely to éudvoia, though this is ap- 
parently the more immediate reference 
in the present passage, but includes that 
deep peace and tranquillity which is His 
blessed gift, and emanates from His 
Cross ; compare eiphyn Ocod, Phil. iv. 7, 
in which the idea is substantially the 
same, except that perhaps peace is there 
contemplated as in its antithesis to anx- 
ious worldliness (see notes in loc.), while 
here it is rather to the hard, unloving, 
and unquiet spirit that mars the union 
of the é€v cua. The reading rod @cod 
(Rec.) is fairly supported [O2D°EJK; 


Crap. III. 15, 16. COLOSSIANS. 


193 


Tod Xpictod BpaBevétw ev rais Kapdiars budv, ets iy Kal éxdj- 


Synre ev &l capate Kai evyapiotoe yiveoSe. 1%‘O Royos tod 


16. év rats kapdias] So Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., with ABCD1FG; 10 mss.; ap- 
parently all Vy. ; C@hrysost., Theod. (comm.); Lat. Ff. The reading é» 77 kupdia 
(Rec., Tisch. ed. 2, 7) is (a) so feebly supported, — only by D?EKL (MSS. here of 
doubtful authority from showing other traces of conformation to Hph. v.19); great 
mass of mss. ; Clem., Theod. (text), al., and (>) so very probably an assimilation 
to Eph. /. c. (E, however, there reads év rats capd.), that it is difficult to conceive 
what principle, except that of opposition to Lachm., induced Tisch. to retain so very 
questionable a reading, and to reverse the judgment of his first edition. 


nearly all mss.; Goth., al.], but in all which, the eis marking the immediate 


probability is a correction. 


vv 
BpaBevéro] ‘rule, -Og4  [ducat, 
regat] Syriac, ‘sit gubernatrix,’ Beza. 
The verb BpaBevew [Spa = po, see notes 
on Phil. iii. 14] has here received differ- 
ent explanations, ‘exultet,’ Vulg., Goth., 
‘ stabiliatur,’ Copt., ZEthiop., ‘ abundet,’ 
Clarom., all perhaps endeavoring to re- 
tain some shade of the original meaning 
(aywvoserotody re kal BpaBevovoay, The- 
od.), but obscuring rather than elucidat- 
ing. The later and secondary meaning 
‘administrare.’ ‘ eubernare,’ Hesychius 
iguvécsw (Raph., Annot.Vol. 11. p.533 sq. 
and Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.), seems 
here the most simple and natural ; ‘let 
the peace which comes from Christ order 
all things in your hearts.’ For confirma- 
tion of this later meaning, see also the 
exx. collected by Krebs (Obs. p. 843), 
and Loesn. (Obs. p. 373), one of the most 
pertinent of which is Jos. Antig. 1v. 3. 2, 
ndvta of mpovola dioiKeirat Kad... . Kate 
BovAnow BpaBevduevoy thy ahy eis TéA0s 
épxera: where the association with d:0:- 
keioSa: renders the meaning very dis- 
tinct. On the use of kapdla to denote 
the subject in its inner relations, see 
Beck, Seelenl. 111. 23, p. 80, compare p. 
107. eis hv Kat éxans.] 
“unto which [almost, for unto it (see notes 
on ch. i. 25, 27)] ye were also called ;’ 
unto the enjoyment and participation of 
25 


(not ultimate) object of the kaAei (1 
Cor. i. 9, 1 Tim. vi. 12, compare notes), 
and thus differing but little from ém) with 
dat., by which Chrysost. here explains it. 
The latter perhaps involves more the 
idea of approximation (Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 172), the former of direction. The as- 
censive «at marks the «Ajjous as also hay- 
ing the same object as the apostle’s ad- 
monition. év év) cépars| 
‘in one body,’ 7. e. so as to abide in one 
body ; not marking the object contem- 
plated, ‘ut unum essetis corpus’ (comp. 
Grotius), nor the manner of the calling 
(Steig., compare 1 Cor. vii. 15), but, as 
the more concrete term seems to require, 
simply the result to which it tended ; 
@xovouncey 6 Xp. Tovs wavras ev cBua Tot- 
joa, Gicum.; compare Eph. ii. 16, and 
Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, p. 370. 

kal evxdp. ylv| ‘and be (become) 
thankful,’ scil. to God (Chrysost., Theo- 
phyl.) as 6 kaAév (see notes on Gal. i. 6), 
less probably to Christ, as Theod. and 
expressly Syr. and Ath. The meamag 
“amabiles,’ edxdpiro: (Olshaus.), though 
lexically defensible (comp. Xen. (con. 
v. 10), seems here wholly inappropriate. 
Edxapioria was a duty ever foremost in 
the thoughts of the great apostle, 1 
Thess. v. 18; observe his frequent use 
of edyapioretv (25 times) and edxapiorla 
(12 times), the latter of which only oc- 
curs thrice elsewhere (Acts xxiv. 3, Rev. 


194 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 16, 17. 


lo) Uf ’ lal 
Xpictod évouxeitw év vulv wrovoiws, év wdon copia diudacKovTes 
Kal vouSeTodvtes EavTous adpols, Uuvous, @dais mvevpatiKats, ev 
an / 15 bp las Ol ig a tal (Q) an 17 \ a iva 
TH XapiTe ddovtes év Tais Kapdias tpov TO Oe, “ Kai way O TL 


17. *Incod Xpiotod] So Lachm., with ACD1FG; mss.; very many Vv.; some 
Ff. Rec., followed by Tisch. and A/f., reads Kuplov *Inood with BD°EK; great 
mass of mss.; Amit., Goth., Syr. (Philox.), al.; Clem. (7), Theod., al., but appy. 
with less probability. By a comparison of the variations of this and the preceding 
verse with those of Eph. v. 19, 20 ( Alf.’s remark that there are ‘ hardly any,’ is scantly 
correct) we may form some interesting /ocal comparisons. It will be seen that KI 
present distinct traces of conformation, E less so, ADFG perhaps still less, and B 
searcely any at all; C has a lacuna at Eph. /. ec. 


iv. 9, vii. 12) in the whole N. T. Fora 
good sermon on the whole of the verse, 
see Frank, Serm. x1. Vol. 11. p. 394 
(A.-C. Libr.). 

16.6 Adyos tod Xp.] ‘the word 
of Christ,’ as delivered in the Gospel, 
Xpicrod being the genitive subjecti, the 
word spoken and proclaimed by Him, 1 
Thessalon. i. 8, iv. 15, 2 Thessalon. 
iii. 1; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 
158. It is perfectly unnecessary, with 
Lachm. (ed. stereot.), to enclose this 
clause in brackets. The previous more 
general exhortations to love and peace 
which conclude with edxdp. yiverde are 
suitably accompanied by a more special 
one which shows the efficacy of the Gos- 
pel in such respects, and more fully ex- 
pands the last precept; mapaivéoas ev- 

‘xaptotous civat Kal thy ddd Selkvuct, 
Chrys. 
iptv wr.| ‘dwell within you richly ;’ 
surely not ‘among you,’ De W., which 
would tend to obliterate the force of the 
compound, nor ‘in you as a Church,’ 
Meyer, Alf., which really comes to the 
same thing,—but, as usual, ‘ within 
you’ (thy tot Xp. Sibdackadrlav ev tH 
Wx mepupepew ael, Theod.), ‘in your 
hearts,’ the outcoming and manifestation 
of which was to be seen in the acts de- 
scribed by the participles. Comp. Rom. 
viii. 11, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, the only other 
passages in St. Paul’s Epistles (2 Cor. 
vi. 16, is a quotation) in which évoieiy 


évorkeltw év 


éy juiy occurs, and which, though the 
7d évoixoby is different, go far to fix the 
meaning in the present case. The 
indwelling was to be mAovoiws, ‘ richly,’ 
‘not with a scanty foothold, but with a 
large and liberal occupancy,’ Eadie. 

éy taan copia is not to be connected 
with what precedes (Syr., — but appar- 
ently not Chrys., as asserted by Meyer, 
Alf.), but with what follows, as in ch. i. 
28. The construction is then perfectly 
harmonious ; évoixeitw has its single ad- 
verb mAovotws, and is supported and ex- 
panded by two co-ordinate participial 
clauses, each of which has its spiritual 
manner. or element of action (é€v mdéon 
copia, év xdpitt) more exactly defined ; 
see notes on ch. i. 28. Sis] 
d:SdaK. kal vovsert. EavT.] ‘teach- 
ing and admonishing one another ;’ onthe 
meaning and force of vousereiv, see notes 
on ch. i. 28. On the possible force. of 
éavrovs, see notes on ver. 13: here itis 
more probably simply for aAAfAous ; see 
Winer, Gr. § 22.5, p. 136. On the very 
intelligible participial anacoluthon, see 
Green, Gr. p. 313, notes on Eph. iii. 18, 
and on Phil. i. 30. é 


Warpots, Buvots, KT. A.) ‘with 
psalms, hymns, spiritual songs ;’ instru- 


ment by which, or vehicle in which 
(Mey.), the ddax} and vousérnois were 
to be communicated. Mill and Tisch. 
connect these datives with the following 
words, but not with propriety, as ¢5uvres, 


Cuap. III. 16, 17. 


COLOSSIANS. 


195 


xX lal ) , A 3 4 / > bie ’ a lo! 
éay Toure év oye 1) ev Epyo, Tavta év ovowatt "Incod Xpictov 


evyaptotouvTes TO Oe tratpt dv avrod. 


has already two defining members asso- 
ciated with it. On the distinction be- 
tween the terms, and the force of avev- 
par. (‘such as the Holy Spirit inspires’), 
see notes on the parallel passage, Eph. 
vy. 19. Meyer remarks that the singing, 
ete., here alluded to, was not necessarily 
at divine service, but at the ordinary so- 
cial meetings; see Clem.-Alex. Peed. 11. 
4, 43, Vol. 1. p. 194 (ed. Pott.), where 
this passage is referred to; compare Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1568. On the 
hymns used by the ancient church in her 
services, see Bingham, Antiq. xtv. 2.1. 
The copula xa) after padmots [C2D°D3E 
KL] and after tuvos [AC7DIEKL] 
seems to have-come from the sister pas- 
sage, and is rightly rejected by Lachm., 
Tisch., and most modern editors. 

ey TH XapiTte a5.| ‘in Grace sing- 
ing;’ participial clause co-ordinate to 
the foregoing, specifying another form of 
singing, viz., that of the inward heart ; 
see Eph. v.19, and notes zn loc. *Ev rH 
xdp. [Rec. omits 77 with AD*E*KL; 
al.] is obviously parallel to év mdon oo- 
gia, and serves to define the characteris- 
tic element to which the dew was to be 
circumscribed (see notes on ch. i. 28); 
it was to be in the element, and with 
the accompaniment of Divine grace: so 
Chrys. 2, ard ris xdpitos Tov Mvevuaros, 
CGicum., dia tis mapa tod ayiov Mvedua- 
Tos Sovelons xdpiros, both of which, how- 
ever, are rather coarse paraphrases of the 
‘preposition. The interpretations ‘ quod 
se utilitate commendet,’ Beza, ‘ with be- 
coming thankfulness,’ De Wette, etc., 
are unsatisfactory, and xapiévtws, Grot., 
‘in dexteritate quadam gratiosd,’? Da- 
venant 2, untenable, as the singing was 
not aloud, but in the silence of the heart 
(Mey.). év tats kapdlats 
-bp@r| ‘in your hearts ;’ locality of the 
gew. This ddew év rais xapd. is not an 


expansion of the preceding, defining its 
proper characteristics or accompani- 
ments (uy wdvov TG oTduatt, Theod.) — 
in which case the clause would be subor- 
dinate, —but specifies another kind of 
singing, viz., that of the inward heart to 
God, the former being éavrozs : see notes 
on Eph. v.19. The reading Kupiw [Rec. 
with C2D°EKL] seems clearly to have 
arisen from the parallel passage. 

17. wav 8 Tt... py] An absolute 
nom. standing out of regimen and 
placed at the beginning of the sentence 
with a slight emphatic force; see Jelf, 
Gr. § 477.1. This seems slightly more 
correct than to regard it as an accusative 
reflected from the following wdvra, as 
apparently Steiger and De Wette. 
awdav7ais certainly not adverbial (Storr, 
compare Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 329), 
nor even a resumption of the preceding 
mav, but an accus. governed by mo:e?re, 
supplied from the preceding zozjjre; 
compare notes on Hphes. v.22. What 
had been stated individually in ray 6 m1 
kK. T. A. is now expressed more fully and 
collectively by mavra. It is difficult to 
understand how the reverse can be the 
case (Kadie), and the plural ‘ individual- 
izing.’ év évémare ’I. 
Xp.| ‘inthe name of Jesus Christ;’ not 
‘jnvocato illius adjutorio,’ Daven. (rare? 
tov Tidy, Chrys.), but, as in Eph. v. 20, 
‘in the name, in that holy and spiritual 
element which His name betokens ;’ 
see notes on Ephes. I. c., on Phil. ii. 10, 
and compare Barrow, Serm. xxx111. 6, 
Vol. 11. p. 323, where every possible 
meaning is stated and exhausted; see 
also Whichcote, Dise. xu111. Vol. 11. p. 
288 sq. (Aberd. 1751), — one of a course 
of three valuable sermons on this text, 
and comp. Beveridge, Serm. c1x. Vol. v. 
p- 116 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 
evxap. TE Oe@ x. 7-A.] ‘ giving thanks 


196 


Wives and husbands, chil- 
dren and parents, observe ¢ > 
your duties. Servants, obey 
your masters and be faithful ; masters, be just. 


to God the Father through Him ;’ attend- 
ant service with which the (rotc?re) rdv7a 
k.T.A.is to be ever associated ; comp. Eph. 
v. 20, and see notes on ver. 15, and on 
Phil. iv. 6; add Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 
11. 2, p. 8336, who less probably limits 
the edxap. to thankfulness for ability 
thus to do all & évdu. «.7.A. The read- 
ing @e@ ka? warp} (ec.) is well support- 
ed [DEFGK; mss.; Valg., Clar., al.], 
but opposed to AC and B (an important 
witness in these verses, see crit. note) ; 
some mss.; Goth., Copt., Sah., al. ; Clem. 
and many Ff. ; so also Lachm. and Tisch. 

18. af yuvatkes] This verse and 
the eight following (iii. 18-iv. 1) con- 
tain special precepts, nearly the same as 
those in the latter part of ch. v. and the 
beginning of ch. vi. of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians. Such a similarity, often ex- 
tending to words and phrases, is notice- 
able, and not very easy to account for, 
except on the somewhat obvious suppo- 
sition that social precepts of this nature 
addressed, in the first instance, to the 
Christians of Colossz and Laodicea, were 
known and felt by the apostle to be 
equally necessary and applicable to the 
church of Ephesus and the Christians 
of Lydia. The exhortations in the past 
Epistles are urged under somewhat dif- 
ferent aspects. A comparison of the two 
Epistles will here be found very instruc- 
tive ; it seems to lead to the opinion that 
the shorter Epistle was written first ; com- 
pare notes on Eph, vi. 21. Alford in 
loc. seems of a contrary opinion, but is 
in some degree at issue with his Prole- 
gomena, p. 42. 
Tots avdp.| ‘submit yourselves to your 
husbands ;’ see notes on Eph. v. 22, where 
the same precept occurs nearly in the 
same language. The addition 


bm oT. 


idiows 


COLOSSIANS. 


an b] ’ 
as avicev ev Kupig. 


Cuap. III. 18, 19. 


18 Aj yuvaixes, UToTdcoede Tois avopaow, 


19 Oi dvdpes, ayarrare 


is opposed to the authority of all the 
other uncial manuscripts. 

&s avijKkev] ‘as it became fitting, ‘as 
it should be,’ as was still more your duty 
when you entered upon your Christian 
profession. The imperf. not perf., Huth.) 
is not for the present (compare Thom. 
M. s. v., p. 751, ed. Bern.), but, as the 
associated éy Kupiw still more clearly 
shows, has its proper force, and points to 
conditions that were simultaneous with 
their entrance into Christianity, but 
which were still not completely fulfilled ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 40. 3, p. 242. and Bern- 
hardy, Synt. x. 3, p. 373, add also Hero- 
dian, s. v., p. 468 (ed. Piers.), where in 
the similar forms mpoojjce, Expnv, eet, 
the tense is properly recognized. On 
the frequently recurring év Kupiw, here 
to be connected with évjxev (compare 
ver. 20), not with brordao. (Chrysost., 
Theoph.), see notes on Eph. iv. 16, vi. 1, 
Phil. ii. 19, al. 

19. of &vipes x.7.A.] Repeated 
in Eph. v. 25, but there enhanced by a 
comparison of the holy bond between 
Christ and His Church. The encyclical 
letter enters into greater and deeper re- 
lations. wy wikpat- 
veade] ‘donot be embittered ;’ compare 
Eph. iv. 31. The verb occurs in its 
simple sense, Rey. viii. 11, x. 9,10; here 
in its metaphorical sense, as occasionally 
both in classical (e.g. Plato, Legg. v. p. 
731 D, associated with a&xpaxoreiv, [De- 
mosth.] Epist. p. 1464, joined with uv7- 
otkaxety), and post-classical, writers, e.g. 
Exod. xvi. 20, émixpdvSy ém ards, al., 
comp. Joseph. Antig. v. 7.1, émucpawvd- 
Mevos mpds avtovs. The form is appar- 
ently pass. with a middle force (‘ medial- 
pass.,’ Kriiger) ; compare Theocr. Jdyil. 
v. 120, and Schol. in loc., mixpatverat . 


[Rec. with L; many mss.; Vv. and Ef.] _ Avmetra, and see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 


Cnap. III. 20, 21. 


COLOSSIANS. 


197 


a - \ , 
Tas yuvaikas Kal fn TiKpaiveoSe Tpos avTds. » Ta réxva bra- 


nr a la) ard b] ? 
KOVETE TOS YyovEevcW KaTa TdVTAa TOUTO yap EvdpeoToY éoTLW ev 
/ fa) \ 
Kupio. 7! Oi watépes, pur) épedifete Ta Téxva bpov, Wa pH aSv- 
P's poy ? 


20. evdpeotév éotw| So Tisch. (ed. 1), Lachm., Alf., al., with ABCDE; 3 mss. 


(Vv. in such cases are hardly to be relied on). 


Tisch. (ed. 2,7) adopts the reversed 


order with FGKL; and great majority of mss.,— apparently very insufficient 


authority. 


6. 1, where a large list of such verbs is 
given, withexamples. On the derivation 
of muxpos [from a root TIIK- ‘ pierced’], 
see Buttmann, Zezil. § 56, comp. Don- 
alds. Cratyl. § 266. 

20. brak. Tots you. x. 7.A.| ‘be 
obedient to your parents in all things ;’ 
comp. Eph. vi. 1. There the exhorta- 
tion is accompanied with a special ref. 
to the fifth commandment; here that 
reference is applicd only, and involved 
in the argumentative clause. The com- 
prehensive t& maya is obviously to be 
regarded as the general rule; excep- 
tional cases (Tots ye doéBeot maTpadow ov 
kata mdvta det braxovew, Theophylact) 
would be easily recognized; the great 
apostle was ever more occupied with 
the rule than with the exceptions to it. 
On the exceptions in the present case, 
see Bp. Taylor, Duct. Dub. 111. 5, Rule 
l.and4sq. The form drakovew, if not 
stronger than srotacc. (De W.), has a 
more inclusive aspect as implying ‘ dicto 
obtemperare,’— not merely submission 
to authority, but obedience to a com- 
mand ; see Tittmann, Synon, 1. p. 193. 
TOUTO yap K.T.A.| ‘forthis is well- 
pleasing in the Lord;’ obviously not ‘to 
the Lord’ (Copt., perhaps following a 
different reading), ev not being a ‘ nota 


° 
dat.,’ nor even ‘coram’ 5o_.5 Syriac, 
‘apud,’ 28th. (Pol.), but, as in ver. 18 
and elsewhere, ‘in Domino,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Goth., the prep. defining the sphere 
in which the 7d eddpeoroy was especially 
felt and evinced to be so. The reading 


of Rec., 73 Kupl, has not the support of 
any uncial MS., and is rejected by all 
modern editors. 

21. wh épediCere| ‘donot irritate ;’ 
duty of fathers, expressed on the negative 
side; compare Eph. vi. 4. The com- 
mand there is wh mapopyicere, between 
which and the present the difference is 
perhaps scarcely appreciable. The for- 
mer verb perhaps points to provocation 
to a deeper feeling, the latter (‘irritare ’) 
to one more partial and transitory. The 
derivation of épedi¢w and épéSw is not 
perfectly certain, it is commonly referred 
to 2pis [Lobeck, Pathol. p. 488, Benfey, 
Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 102], wh ptdoverro- 
Tépous av’Tovs moreire, Chrysost., — but 
comp. Pott, Et. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 162, 
and Benfey, Wurzellexr. Vol. 11. p. 340. 
Lachmann here, according to his princi- 
ples, reads mapopyi¢ere with ACDIEIF 
GL; al. Though well supported, it can 
scarcely be doubted that it is a confor- 
mation to Ephes. /. c. 
iva wh advp.| ‘in order that they may 
not be disheartened ;’ that they may not 


‘have a broken spirit and pass into apa- 


thy and desperation, by seeing their 
parents so harsh and difficult to please ; 
compare Corn. a Lap. in loc. The verb 
aSuuery is an dr. Aeydu. in the N. T., 
but sufficiently common both in the 
LXX. (1 Sam.i. 7, xv. 11), and else- 
where; see examples in Wetst., who 
cites a pertinent passage from AZneas 
Tact. [ap. Fabric. 111. 80. 10], Poliorcet. 
38, opyf 5¢ wndéva petieva trav TuxdvT@Y 
Gydparwv: aSuudrepor yap elev kv. 


198 


poo. 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 22, 23. 


99, ly n id 7 \ / lal \ tA 
Oi SodAo, braKoveTe KATA TavTAa TOIS KATA oapKa 


Kupiows, 1) ev opSadpobovrclats ws avSpwmrdpeckol, aN €v ar 
AoTHTL Kapdias PoBovpevor Tov Kupioy. ™ 0 éav Trovfre, eer~buyis 


_ 22. of ScdA01] Duties of slaves, 
more fully detailed, yet closely sim., both 
in arguments and language, in the paral- 
lel passage in Eph. vi. 5 sq., where see 
notes. On the general drift and object 
of these frequently recurring exhorta- 
tions to slaves, see note on 1 Tim. vi. 1 
sq. 
kup.| ‘ your masters according tu the flesh ;’ 
your bodily, earthly masters ; you have 
another Master in heaven: ‘ of kata odp- 
ka Kup. tacite distinguuntur a Christo,’ 
Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 270. There is 
apparently no consolatory force in the 
addition (mpécrapos 7 dovActa Chrysost., 
Theoph.; sim. Theod., Gicum.); see 
notes on ph. I.c. On the neglected 
distinction between kvpios and Seardrns, 
see Trench, Synon. § 28, comp. Ammon. 
Diff. Voc. p. 89 (ed. Valck.). 

év 6pSarApmodovaActais| ‘in acts of 
eye-service ;’ Kat’ dpSaAmodovaciay, Eph. 
vi. 6; the primary reference to the mas- 
ter’s eye (Sanders. Serm. vit. 67, ad 
Pop.), passes into the secondary ref. to 
falsehearted and hypocritical service gen- 
erally. For examples of this use of the 
plural, compare James ii. 1, év mpotwro- 
Anwias, and the long list in Gal. y. 20, 
where see notes and grammatical refer- 
ences. Lachm. here reads 6p%aApodou- 
Aefg with ABDEFG; 6 mss.; Dam., 
Theoph., Chrysost. (varies): in spite of 
this preponderance of uncial authority we 
seem justified on critical principles in re- 
taining with CKL; great mass of mss. ; 
Clem., Theod.; acumen. (Rec., Tisch.), 
—the plural, which, even independently 
of the parallel passage, was so likely to 


a f 
Tots KaTa TCapKa 


‘be changed to a reading supposed to be 


more in harmony with the éy amAdrnri 
kapdias in the correlative member which 
follows. é€v GmAST. Kap- 
Stas] ‘in singleness of heart,’ in freedom 


from all dishonesty, duplicity, and false 
show of industry ; see Eph. vi. 5, where 
the meaning is slightly more limited by 
the preceding clause wera dou kat tpd- 
pov. On the scriptural meaning and ap- 
plication of ‘doubleness of heart,’ see 
Beck, Seelenl. 111. 26, p. 106. Here, as 
Meyer observes, év amrAdr. in the nega- 
tive clause answers to éy épdaAmod. in 
the positive, and the following goBovu. 


Tov Kup. to as dvdpwrdpecka. The read- 
ing is again slightly doubtful. Rec. has 


@edv, with D®E?IK; mss.; ZLachm. and 
Tisch. adopt Képiv, with ABCD!EIF 
GL, — which is certainly to be preferred, 
as there seems nothing in Eph. J. ec. to 
which it could be a conformation. 

23.6 éav mwornre| More specific 
explanation and expansion of the pre- 
ceding positive exhortations. Again, 
there is a difference of reading; that of 
the text is found in ABCDIFG, and 
adopted by ZLachm. and Tisch. The 
Rec. rat wav b 7 eay is feebly supported 
[D°*D°EKL], and possibly a reminis- 
cence of ver. 17. Alford prefixes kat, 
apparently by an oversight. 
é€x puxis] ‘from the heart (soul) ;’ 
stronger than éy amAér. kapd. above, scil. 
ef edvoias kat bon Sdvauis, GEcum., and 
as opposed to any outward constraint, 
Delitzsch, Psychol. 1v. 7, p. 162: comp. 
on Eph. vi. 7. @s T@ Kup. 
k. T. A.] ‘as to the Lord and not to men ;’ 
dat. of ‘ interest,’ Kriiger, Sprachil. § 48. 
4. The os serves to mark the mode in 
which, or the aspects under which, the 
service was to be viewed; see Bernhar- 
dy, Synt. vir. 1, p. 333, Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 11. p. 360, and notes on Eph. v. 22, 
where this interpretation of @s is more 
fully investigated. It is objected to by 
Eadie (on Col. p. 258), but apparently 
without full reason, being grammatically 


Cuap. III, 24, 25. 


COLOSSIANS. 


13g 


epyateoSe @s TH Kupie Kat ov« avSp@rrois, * etddtes OTe amo 


Kupiov arodjprpeoSe tiv avtamodoow Ths KAnpovoutas. TO 


, A Fe ie OR Ne \ 5) a ' A OO/ 
Kupio Xpict@ Sovdevete 6 yap adiKOV KomiceTaL 0 HdiKnoE?, 


/ 
Kal ovk €oTw TpocwToAnuYia. 


exact and apparently exegetically satis- 
factory. The negative ovx, as usually 
in such opposite members, is absolute 
and objective; they were to work as 
workers to the Lord and non-workers to 
men; they were not to serve two masters 
(Mey.) ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 1, p. 
422, Green, Gr. p. 121 sq. 

24. ciddéres| ‘seeing ye know:’ cau- 
sal participle, giving the reason for the 
preceding command ; compare ch. iv. 1, 
and the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 8. 
&md Kuptov| ‘from the Lord,’ not per- 
fectly identical with mapa Kupiov Eph. vi. 
8, but, with the proper force of the prep., 
expressive of procedure from, as from the 
more remote object : see Winer, Gr 47.b, 
p- 326, and notes on Gal.i. 11. The re- 
mark of Eadie that amd marks that the gift 
‘comes zmmediately from Christ,’ is thus 
wholly untenable. In rapa (more usual in 
personal relations) the primary idea of 
simple motion from the subject passes 
into the more usual one of motion from 
the immediate neighborhood of the ob- 
ject; see Donalds. Crat. § 177, Winer, 
biG.spn 320. 
KAnp.] ‘ the recompense of the inheritance,’ 
z. e. the recompense which is the inheri- 
tance, THs KAnpov. being the gen. of identi- 
ty or apposition, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, 
pp. 82, 85, Wi. Gr. § 59.8. a, p.470. This 
KAnpovoula is obviously the KAnpoy. (év 
7H Baotrcla Tov Xp. kat Ocod, Eph. v. 5), 
which was reserved for them hereafter ; 
compare 1 Pet. i. 4, and on the meaning 
of the term, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 22, 
Vol. 11. p. 249. The double compound 
avtTamddoo1s in an Gm. Aeydu. in the N. T., 
but not uncommon elsewhere (Isa. Ixi. 
2, Hosea ix. 7, Polyb. Hist. v1. 5.3, and 
with a local reference, 1v. 43. 5, al.): 
the verb is found several times in the 


> - 
THY avTaT. THS 


N. T., and the pass. compound, davrard- 
doua, twice, Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9 
(quotation). The gloss picSamodociav 
only occurs in cursive mss. 

76 Kup. Xp. Sov .]| ‘serve ye the Lord 
Christ :’ brief yet comprehensive state- 
ment of the duty of 500A, regarded in 
its true light, @s T@ Kupio kal ob« avdpd- 
mots, ver. 23. So distinctly, imperative, 
Vulg., Copt. (ari-bok), Ath. (Pol. ; mis- 
translated) ; Claromanus less probably 
adopts the present. The reading is 
scarcely doubtful: Rec. inserts yap with 
D2D3(E?7) KL; Syriac (both), A®thiopic 
(Platt), Goth., al., but with very little 
probability, being weaker than the text 
in uncial authority [ABC!IC2D15], and 
suspicious as helping out the seeming 
want of connection. 

25. 6 yap abiKa@y| ‘for the wrong- 
doer” Itis slightly doubtful whether 6 
a5ixn@y refers to the master (Theod.), to 
the slaves (Theoph.), or, more compre- 
hensively, to both (Huther). The pre- 
vailing meaning of adi«ety in the N. T. 
(‘injuriam facere,’ Vulg.; except Rev. 
Xxii. 11, but surely not Philem. 18, as 
Eadie), and still more the succeeding 
clause, ov« 2oTiy mpoowm., seem decided- 
ly in favor of the former; so that the 
verse must be regarded as supplying en- 
couragement and consolation to slaves 
when suffering oppression or injustice at 
the hands of their masters ; é07e noi, 
Kav bh TUXNTE 
Tay SeoTwdTav, 


ayasav avrTiddcewy Tapé, 
€or Sixasoxpityns ds ovK 
olde SovAov kal Seomdrov Siapopdy, GAAG 
Sixatay ciodéper Thy Widov, Theod. 

komigetat| ‘shall receive back,’ as it 
were a deposit : not so much a brachy- 
logy as a pregnant statement, ‘he shall 
receive back 8 #5ixnee in the form of just 
retribution,’ Winer, Gram. § 66.1. b, p, 


200 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap: IV. 1-3: 


IV. Oi kdpwot, 7d Stkavov Kat THv icétyTa Tots SovdAOLS Tra- 


péxeode, ciddres b7u Kal bpeis Exere Kupiov év ovpave. 


Pray for us and for our suc- 
cess in the Gospel. Walk 
wisely, speak to the point, 
and be ready to answer them that ask. 


547. The future refers to the day of 
final retribution ; see on Eph. vi. 8. 
TpogwnrorAnmy tal ‘respect of persons ;’ 
see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and on the (Alex- 
andrian) insertion of wu, Tisch. Prolegom. 
p- xlvi. sq. (ed. 7). In the parallel pas- 
sage, Eph. vi. 9, rapa avrg (Rom. ii. 11. 
ix. 14) is added [FG rapa 7G ce], in 
which case the prep. has its prevailing 
idea of closeness to (comp. on ver. 24), 
and marks the ethical presence with the 
object (Latin in) of the quality alluded 
to; comp. Matt. Gr. § 588. b. 


Cnrapter IV. 1. Of xvpioc] The du- 
ties of masters are enunciated on the 
positive side; in the parallel passage, 
Ephes. vi. 9, the addition, dmévres Thy 
amreiAnv, defines also the negative side. 
Thy icornta| ‘equity. The associa- 
tion of this word with 7d dfxaov and the 
undoubted occurrence of it in a similar 
sense elsewhere (see Philo, de Just. § 4, 
Vol. 11. p. 363 (ed. Mang.), and esp. 
§ 14, 7b. p. 374, where it is termed the 
paTpn Sixaoctvvns) seem fully to justify 
the more derivative meaning adopted 
above: so Syr., Vulg., Auth. (Pol.), ap- 


parently Copt., and distinctly Chrysost., _ 


and the Greek commentators; iodryta 
exdAeoe Thy TMpoonkovoay émipmecAcay, 
Theod.: so De W., Neander (Planting, 
Vol. 1. p. 488), Alf., and the majority 
of modern expositors. Meyer, and after 
him Eadie (with modifications), contend 
for the more literal meaning ‘ equality’ 
(2 Cor, viii. 13, 14, compare Job xxxvi. 
29), i.e. the equality of condition in 
spiritual matters which Christianity 
brought with it; compare Philem. 16: 
so perhaps Goth. ibnassu [similitudinem ; 


2 Ti mpocevyh mpooKaptepette, ypryopovv- 
Tes Ev AUTH ev EvyapLoTia, ® mpocevXopeEvoL Gwe 


cognate with ‘even’]. This is ingenious 
and plausible, but, on account of the as- 
sociation with 7d dikaoy, not satisfactory. 
In such a case we may with some profit 
refer to the ancient Vv. and Greek com- 
mentators. mapéexerse] 
‘ supply on your side ;’ middle, Acts xix. 
24, Tit. ii. 7; active elsewhere in the 
N. T. In this form of the middle voice, 
called the ‘dynamic’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 52. 8), or ‘intensive’ middle, the ref- 
erence to the powers put forth by the 
subject is more distinct than in the ac- 
tive, which simply states the action ; 
compare Donalds. Gram. § 432. 2. bb4. 
Such delicate shades of meaning can 
scarcely be expressed in translation, but 
no less exist ; see especially Kriiger, /.c., 
where this verb is particularly noticed, 
and Kuster, de Verb. Med. § 49. The 
difference appears to have been partially 
appreciated by Ammonius, in his too 
narrow distinction,, map¢éxew mev AéyeTat 
Te Sid Xetpds HSdueva, mapéexeoda Se emt 
TY Tis WuXis Siadécewy, oiov mpoSuulay, 
e¥voray [but see Acts xxviii. 2, al.], de 
Diff. Voc. p. 108 (ed. Valck.) 
eiSdres x. 7. A.] ‘seeing ye know that 
ye also ;’ causal participle, as in chapter 
iii. 24. The ascensive xa) hints that 
masters and slaves stand really in like 
conditions of dependence; déomep éexeivar 
twas, ow Kal iueis Exere Kipiov, The- 
oph. The reading in the last word of 
the verse is not quite certain: Rec. with 
good uncial authority [DEFGKL] reads 
ovpavots, but not without suspicion, on 
account of the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 
9. The singular is found in ABC; al. 
(Lachm., Tisch.). 

2.77 TpocevxH mpock.] 


> 


* con 


Cuap. IV. 2, 3. 


COLOSSIANS. 


201 


Kab Trepl nuav, iva 6 Ocos avoiEn jypiv Svpav.tod Aoyov, Aadijoat 


tinue instant in your prayer ;’ Rom. xii. 
12, Actsi.14. The verb mpockaprepety 
occurs several times in the N. T., and in 
the majority of cases, as here, with a dat., 
in which combination it appears to de- 
note an earnest adherence and attention 
whether to a person (Acts viii. 13) or to 
a thing; mpockap. TH mpooevxh, ws mepl 
tivos emmévov, Chrys. Itis found in the 
19.8.8 (Num. xiii. 20, absolutely), and 
in Polyb. (Hist. 1. 55. 4, I. 59. 12, al.) 
both absolutely and with a dative re or 
persone. 

yenyopodytes ev avril ‘being 
watchful in it;’ modal clause to mpoo- 
kaptepew : they were not to be dull and 
heavy in this great duty, but wakeful 
and active ; compare Eph. vi. 18, 1 Pet. 
iy. 7. ’Evis here not instrumental (De 
Wette), but, as usual, denotes the sphere 
in which the wakefulness and alacrity 
was to be evinced. 

évy evxaptotia] ‘with thanksgiving.’ 
This clause is not to be connected with 
the finite verb, but with the participle, 
and, as in Eph. vi. 18 (see notes), speci- 
wes the peculiar accompaniment, or con- 
comitant act with which 4 mpoc. was to 
be associated ; rouvréort yeTa evXaptoTias 
TavTny mo.ovvtes, Theophil. This not 
uncommon use of éy in the N. T. (év ad- 
junctive) to denote an attendant act, ele- 
ment, or circumstance, has scarcely re- 
ceived from Winer (Gr. § 48. a, p. 344) 
the notice it deserves; see notes on ch. 
ii. 7, on Eph. v. 26, and Green, Gr. p. 
289. On the duty of edxapiotia see notes 
‘on ch. iii. 15, and on Phil. iv. 6. 

3. kal wep) nudy] ‘ for us also;’ 
scil. for the apostle and Timothy, not for 
the apostle alone (Chrys., Theophil.) : 
the change to the singular in the last 
clause of the verse (dédeuar) would other- 
wise seem pointless ; see notes on ch. i. 
3. On the almost interchangeable mean- 
ings of wep) and érép in this and similar 


formuls, see notes on Phil. i. 7, and on 
Eph. vi. 19. va «7. A.] 
Subject of the prayer blended with the 
purpose of making it: use of iva in ref- 
erence to secondary purpose ; see notes 
on Phil. i. 9, and on Eph. i. 17. 

avolin mmtv «.t.A.] ‘may open to 
us a door of the word ;’ 7. e. may remove 
any obstacle to the preaching of the gos- 
pel. The Supa is thus not exactly ezoo- 
dos kal mappyota (Chrys., Gicum.), but 
involves a figurative representation of 
obstructions and impediments that barred 
the way to preaching the Gospel,»which 
were removed when the Svpa was open- 
ed; compare Acts xiv. 27, 1 Cor. xvi. 
9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. 
p- 1415, and examples in Wetstein on 
We Gone. Aaria atl 
Infin. of purpose and intention ; see notes 
on ch. i. 23, where this construction is 
discussed. On the meaning and deriva- 
tion of AaAew ‘ vocem ore emittere,’ see 
notes on Tit. ii. 1, and on the distinction 
between Aadciv (Tb TeTayuévws mpopépe- 
ada Tov Adyov) and Agyew (7d ardKTws 
expepey TX evmomintovTa phuata),—a 
distinction, however, which cannot al- 
ways be maintained in the N. Test., see 
Ammonius, Diff. Voc. p. 87 (ed. Valck.). 
muoThpltov Tov Xp.| ‘the mystery of 
Christ ;’ not ‘the mystery relating to 
Christ,’ gen. objecti (De W., comp. Eph. 
i. 9), but gen. subjecti, ‘the mystery of 
which He is the sum and substance ;’ 
see notes on Eph. iii. 4, and compare on 
Col. ii. 2. On the meaning of wuorhpiov, 
see on Ephes. v. 32, and Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. tv. 9, Vol. 11. p- 89. 

82d Kal Sé8enar] ‘for which I 
have also been bound ;’ ‘ which I have 
preached even wéxpt decudv’ (2 Tim. ii. 
9), the ascensive xa! marking the ex- 
treme to which he had proceeded in his 
evangelical labors: he had endured pri- 
vations and sufferings, and now beside 


26 


202 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 4, 5. 


la lol C) 
TO pvoTHpioy ToD Xpuctod, di 6 Kai Sédewat, * va havepdow avTo 


as Sef pe AaAHoa. ° Ev codig wepuratetre pos Tovs é&@, TOV 


that, bonds. The perf. Séd5eua (‘I have 
been and am bound’) seems clearly to 
evince that the apostle was now in cap- 
tivity: that this was at Rome, not at 
Cesarea (Mey., inl. p. 5), is satisfacto- 
rily shown by Alford, Prolegom. p. 20 
sq. compared with p. 59. The reading 
5 dy, adopted by Lachm. with BFG; 
Boern., has not sufficient external sup- 
port. ” 

4. iva pavepsow| ‘in order that I 
may make it manifest.’ It is somewhat 
doubtful whether this clause depends (a) 
on dédeua, Chrys., Beng., al.; compare 
Phil. i. 12, 2 Tim. ii. 9; (b) on mpocev- 
xduevor, De W., Baumg.-Crus., al.; (c) 
on the preceding infinitival clause of pur- 
pose, Aarjoa Td pvothjpioy, ver. 3, Mey., 
al., or more generally, on the whole pur- 
pose involved in the verse, viz. unob- 
structed, unhindered speaking. Of these 
(a) involves a paradoxical assertion, 
which here, without any further explana- 
tion or expansion, seems somewhat az- 
pooddxntoy and out of place: (b) impairs 
the continuity of the sentence, and puts 
a prayer which thus taken per se would 
naturally be referred to subjunctive ca- 
pabilities in somewhat awkward paral- 
lelism with one which refers to the re- 
moval of objective hinderances: (c) on 
the contrary, keeps up the continuity, 
and carries out with proper modal addi- 
tions (@s de? we AaAjjoou) the Aadjoa 
which was the object involved in the 
prayer; ovx dws amadAay@ Tv Secuar, 
GAN Orws AaAhow TA mvoTHpioy TOD Xpic- 
tov, 'Theoph. @s Sel pe 
Aarjoat] ‘as I ought to speak;’ so, 
but with a slightly different reference, 
Eph. vi. 20. This was not to be pera 
TOAATS TIS Tappnatas Kal wndev broorei- 
‘ Aduevov (Chrys.) while in prison (which 
is apparently the sentiment mainly con- 
veyed in Eph. /. c.), nor with any sub- 


jective reference to his inward duty (Da- 
venant, Hammond), but, as the previous 
avocén Svpay seems to suggest, simply 
and objectively, ‘as I ought to do it (scil. 
freely and unrestrainedly), so as best to 
advance and further the gospel.” While 
dedeuevos he could not AaAjjoa ds der 
avTov Aadjjoat; see Meyer in loc. Eadie 
unites both the subjective and objective 
reference: the phrase is confessedly gen- 
eral, still the context seems to point, 
mainly and principally, if not exclusive- 
ly, to the latter. In Eph. /.¢., on the 
contrary, though the language is so very 


‘similar, the reference in both members 


seems to have more of a subjective char- 
acter, and the construction in conse- 
quence to be slightly different. 

5. év coplta| ‘in wisdom ;’ element 
and sphere in which they were to walk, 
Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346: pndeutay 
avrois mpdpacw Sidote BAGBns, mavTa 


? 


bmep Tis avTav pnxXavaose owTyplas, 
Theod. On the meaning of copia, — 
not merely ‘prudence,’ but practical 
Christian wisdom, — compare notes on 
ch. i. 9, and on Eph. i. 8. 

mpos tovs &&w]| ‘toward them that 
are without, robs undérw wemoreukdtas. 
Theod.; the regular designation of all 
who were not Christians, 1 Cor. v. 12, 
13, 1 Thessal. iv. 12; see Kypke, Obs. 
Vol. 11. p. 198, and notes on 1 Tim. iii. 
7. The prep. mpés, both here and 1 Thess. 
l.c., marks the social relation (Mey.) in 
which they were to stand with of w, the 
proper meaning of ‘ethical direction to- 
ward’ (Winer, Gr. § 49.h, p. 360) being 
still distinctly apparent. For examples 
of this use of mpés, see Bernhardy, Synt. 
v. 31, p. 265, Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. y. 1. 
2, Vol. 11, p. 1157, where this prep. is 
extremely well discussed. 

Toy katpodv éfay.|] ‘buying up for 
yourselves the ( fitting) season: ’ seeon Eph. 


Cuap. IV. 6,7. 


Katpov e€ayopalopevor. 


COLOSSIANS. 


203 


6 e , e lal / > 7 ef 
0 AOYOS U“@V TaVTOTE EV YUpLTL, AaTe 


> / Pd é nN et e a a a / b) t S, 
NPTVULEVOS, ELOEVAL TTWS O&L UMAS €Vl EKAOTWM ATTOKPLWEG SAL, 


You will learn my state 
and all matters here from e¢ 2 
Tychicus and Onesimus. 


v. 16, where this formula is investigated 
at length. The exhortation in this verse 
is extremely similar to that in Ephes. v. 
15, 16, except only that the precepts ex- 
pressed there in a negative, are here ex- 
pressed in a positive form. The reason 
for the present clause is there specifically 
noticed, dr: af juépat movnpal eiow : here 
nothing more is stated than a general 
precept (en copia wepimuteire) with an 
adjoined notice of the manner in which 
it was to be carried. out: they were to 
make their own every season for walking 
in wisdom, and to avail themselves of 
every opportunity of obeying* the com- 
mand. 

6.6 Adyos buGyv] ‘ your speech,’ 
not only generally, but, as the close of 
the verse shows, more especially zpds 
Tous ew. év xapiri| 
‘with grace;’ scil. 2orw: xdpis was to 
be the element in which, or perhaps the 
garb with which, the Adyos was to be in- 
vested ; xdpis was to be the ‘habitus 
orationis ;7 compare notes on 1 Zim. i. 
18. dAatt Aprvy.| ‘ sea- 
soned with salt;’ further specification. 
Their discourse was not to be profitless 
and insipid, but, as food is seasoned 
with salt to make it agreeable to the pal- 
ate, so was it to have a wholesome point 
and pertinency which might commend 
itself to, and tend to the edification of 


the hearers; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 


Vol. 11. p. 181. An indirect caution 
and antithetical reference to Adyos ca- 
mpos (‘ne quid putridi subsit,’ Bengel, 
compare Chrys.) is plausible (compare 
Eph. iv. 29 sq.), but not in accordance 
with més de? aroxplyecdat, which points 
to Adyos under forms in which campérns 
could scarcely have been intruded. The 


i \ aise ON 4 , CoA / 
Ta Kat éue Tavta yvopice bpiv TiyiKxos 
\ >’ \ \ \ 7 \ 
6 ayamrnTos abedpos Kal TicTOs OudKOVOS Kal 


later classical use of GAs, ‘sal, sales, sa- 
lin,’ seems here out of place. On the 
later form GAas, see Buttm. Gr. Vol. 1. 
p: 227. eidévat| ‘to know, 
7. é€. “so that you may know;”’ loosely 
appended infinitive expressive of conse- 
quence ; compare Madvig, Gram. § 148, 
rem. For examples of this ‘ infin. epex- 
egeticus,’ which is more usually found 
in clauses expressive of purpose or inten- 
tion (see on ch. i. 22), but is also found 
in laxer combinations (Acts xy. 10, Heb. 
v. 5), see Winer, Gr. § 44.1, p. 284. 
mas Set amoxp.| ‘Show you ought to 
the w@s embracing all 
the various forms of answer which the 
occasion might require. The apostle 
further adds, not without significance, év2 
éxdotw; each individual, whether put- 
ting his questions from malice or igno- 
rance, sincerity or insincerity, was sepa- 
rately to receive the appropriate answer 
to his inquiry ; compare 1 Peter iii. 15. 
The context, as Meyer observes, seems 
to limit the present reference to the inter- 
course of Christians with non-Christians, 
though the command has obviously an 
universal application: Chrysost. notices 
the case of the apostle at Athens; Mey. 
adds to this his answer before Felix, 
Festus, and the Jews at Rome. 

7.7% Kat éwé| ‘my condition,’ ‘my 
circumstances,’ ‘res meas,’ Beza: on this 
formula see reff. on Eph. vi. 21, and on 
the force of xara in this collocation, 
notes on Phil. i. 12. 

TdxeKos| not Tvxinds, Mill, Griesb. ; 
an Ao.avds, mentioned Acts xx. 4, Eph. 
vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 12, Tit. iii. 12; see on 
Eph. l.c. His name is here associated 
with three titles of esteem and affection ; 
he is an ayamntds adeApds in reference to 


return answer ;’ 


204 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuar. IV. 8, 9. 


avvdouros év Kuplo, § dv &reuaya mpos buds eis abto TobTO, iva. 


fol x N \¢ lal \ / \ od ¢ a 9 \ 0 
YV@ TA TEepl ULOY KAL TAPAKANETH Tas Kapoias v“wY, “ guy Uvn- 


/ lal lel Ris AS nw 3 nr v4 2 > ¢ n / 
ciwe TO TICTO Kal ayaTTNT@ a6EXPO, 65 eaTw €E Upov' TavTa 


bpiv ywwploiow Ta woe. 


the Christian community, a mords didio- 
vos in reference to his missionary services 
to St. Paul (uot in the ministry general- 
ly, Alford), and farther, with a graceful 
allusion to similarity of duties, a otvdov- 
Aos év Kupiw, a co-operator with, and co- 
adjutor of, the apostle in the service of 
the same Master ; compare notes on L’ph. 
vi. 21, éy Kuplw may be 
associated with all three designations 
«De W., compare Eph. /. c.), or with the 
last two (Meyer), or with ovdydovdos 
/th.-Pol., and perhaps Syr.). As the 
two former have defining epithets, per- 
haps the last connection is slightly the 
most probable. 

8. eis avTd TrodTo] ‘for this very 
purpose, viz. as further defined and ex- 
panded in the following clause, ‘ that he 
should gain a knowledge of your state, 
and comfort you.’ On the reference of 
avd TovTo to what follows, comp. Eph. 
vi. 22, Phil. i. 6, and notes in loc. The 
reading is doubtful. Griesb. and Lachm. 
read yvare and juey, with ABDIFG; 
10 mss.; Clarom., Eth. (both Pol. and 
Platt) ; Theod. (text), al., to which Mey. 
adds the argument derived from proba- 
ble erroneous transcription (comp. Pref. 
to Galat. p. xvii.) ;-viz. the accidental 
omission of the TE before TA. The text 
(Ree., Tisch.) is found in CD?2D°EKL ; 
great majority of mss., and (what is very 
important) Vulg., Syr. (both), Coptic, 
Goth. ; Chrysost., Theod. (comm.), al. 
The weight of uncial authority is clearly 
in favor of yv@re, still the distinct prepon- 
derance of Vy., and the probability of a 
conformation to Eph. vi. 22, induce us 
to retain the reading of Tisch.; so De 
Wette and Alf. Tapakaréon] 
‘comfort;’ in reference to their own 


state ; delxvuc: 5 abtobs év metpacuots 
ivtas, Kal mapakAhoews Seouevous, The- 
ophyl. : according to the other reading 
the reference would be to St. Paul; 
compare on Eph. vi. 22. 

9. ody ?Ovnaipe] ‘with Onesimus,’ 
scil. éreupa. There seems no reason to 
doubt (Calvin) that the Onesimus here 
mentioned was the runaway slave of 
Philemon, whose flight from his master 
(Philem. 15), and subsequent conversion 
(at Rome by the apostle, gave rise to the 
exquisite Epistle to Philemon. Whether 
he was identical with Onesimus, Bishop 
of Ephesus, mentioned by Ignatius, Eph. 
§ 1, as affirmed by Ado (ap. Usuard. 
Martyrology, p. 272, ed. Soll.), is very 
doubtful; see Pearson, Vind. Ign. 11. 8, 
p- 463 (A.-C. Libr.). The name ‘was 
not uncommon, added to which the tra- 
dition of the Greek Church (Const. Apost 
vir. 46) represents the ‘ Onesimus Phi- 
lemonis’ to have been Bishop of Bercea 
in Macedonia ; compare Winer, RWB. 
Vol. 11. p. 175. There appear to have 
been two at least of this name in the 
early martyrologies, the legendary no- 
tices of those lives have been mixed up 
together ; see Acta Sanct. Feb. 16, Vol. 
II. p. 855 sq. bs €otiv 
€& tua@v| ‘whois of you,’ ‘ who belongs 
to your city.’ This addition seems to 
have been made, not to give indirect 
honor and praise to the Colossians (iva 
kal eyradkAwmi(wytat &s ToLodTov mpoevey- 
kovres, Theoph.), but to commend the 
tidings and the joint-bearer of them still 
more to their attention. 

Ta @8e] ‘the things here, the matters 
here at Rome, of which 7& kar’ éué, ver. 
7, would form the principal portion. 
The addition mparréueva [FG; Vulg.. 


Cuar. IV. 10. -, 


Aristarchus, and _ others, 
and your faithful Epaphras, 


COLOSSIANS. 


205 


0° Aamdgerar buds ’Apiotapyos 6 cvvarx- 


salute you. Interchange epistles with the church of Laodicea. Tell Archippus to be diligent. 


Claroman.; Lat. Ff.] is a self-evident 
gloss. 

10. ’Apiorapxos| A native of Thessa- 
lonica (Acts xx. 4), who accompanied 
St. Paul on his third missionary journey ; 
he was with the apostle in the tumult at 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 29), and. is again 
noticed as being with him in the voyage 
to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2). There he 
shared the apostle’s captivity, either as 
an attendant on him (see below) or a 
fellow-sufferer. According to some tra- 
ditions of the Greek Church he is said to 
have been Bishop of Apamea in Phryg- 
ia: accordiug to the Roman martyrolo- 
gies, Bishop of Thessalonica ; see Mar- 
tyrol. Rom. p. 343 ( Antwerp, 1589), Acta 
Sanct. Aug. 4, Vol. 1. p. 313. In the 
Menol. Gree. (April 15, Vol. 111. p. 57) 
he is said to have been one of the 70 dis- 
ciples. 6 gvvatxudaa- 
tds pov] ‘my fellow-prisoner.” It is 
certainly singular that in the Epistle to 
Philemon, written so closely at the same 
time with the present Epistle, Aristarchus 
should be mentioned not as a cuvarxman. 
but as a auvepyds, while Epaphras, who 
here indirectly, and still more clearly ch. 
i. 7, appears in the latter capacity, is 
therea cuvaixuddwtos. ‘There seem only 
two probable solutions ; either that their 
positions had become interchanged by 
the results of some actual trial, or that 
their captivity was voluntary, and that 
they took their turns in sharing the apos- 
tle’s captivity, and in ministering to him 
in his bonds. The latter solution, which 
is that of Fritz. (Rom. Vol. 1. p. xxi, 
followed by Meyer), seems the most nat- 
ural ; compare also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 
417 note. To regard the term as semi- 
titular, and as referring to a bygone cap- 
tivity (Steiger, compare Rom. xvi. 7), 
does not seem satisfactory. The term 
is slightly noticeable (‘designat hasta 


superatum et captum,’ Daven.), as car- 
rying out the metaphor of the soldier of 
Christ ; compare Meyer in loc. 

Mdpkos| Almost certainly the same 
with John Mark the son of Mary (Acts 
xii. 12), whom St. Paul and St. Barna- 
bas took with them on their first mission- 
ary journey, who left them when in 
Pamphylia, and who was afterwards the 
cause of the contention between the 
apostle and St. Barnabas (Acts xv. 39); 
compare Blunt, Veracity of Evang. § 24, 
where the connection between John 
Mark and St. Barnabas, and especially 
the history of the latter, is ably elucidat- 
ed. There seems no reason for doubt- 
ing (Grot., Kienlen, Stud. u. Krit. 1843, 
p- 423 sq.) that he was identical with St. 
Mark the Evangelist ; see Meyer, Linl. 
z. Evang. d. Markus, p. 2, Fritz. Proleg. 
in Mare. p. 24. According to ecclesias- 
tical tradition, St. Mark was first Bishop 
of Alexandria, and suffered martyrdom 
there; see Acta Sanct., April 25, Vol. 
Ill. p. 344, &vewrds| 
‘ cousin,’ 5¥4* “a, Numb. xxxvi. 11 ; 
avefiol: tev adeApav maides, Ammon. 
Voc. Diff. p. 54 (ed. Valck.) ; the proper 
term for what was sometimes designated 
as efddeApos by later and non-classical 
writers; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 306, 
where the proper meaning of aveWids is 
well discussed. St. Mark was thus not 
the ‘nephew’ (Auth., but? See remarks 
in Transl.), but the ‘ consobrinus’ Vulg., 


mo 
Claroman.), the 6199 r= (Syr.) of St. 


Barnabas ; see exx. in Wetst. in loc. 

€AadBete évtords] ‘ye received com- 
mands ;’ what these were cannot be de- 
termined. The conjectural explanations, 
— messages from Barnabas (Chrysost.), 
letters of commendation (‘literz forma- 
tx’), either from St. Paul (Daven.) or 
the Church of Rome (Est.), ete. are very 


206 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 10, 11. 


peddwtos pov, Kat Mdpxos 6 averids BapvadBa, epi ob éddBere 
évtodas (€av EXAMn Tpos buds, SéEacYe adtov), ™ Kai ‘“Inaods 6 


Aeyowevos IodcTos, of dvTES Ex TEPITOMAS" OUVTOL pLovOL TUVEpYOL 


numerous, but do not any of them seem 
to deserve particular attention. To find 
in gay x. 7. A. the ‘summa illorum man- 
datorum,’ Beng., is grammatically un- 
tenable ; the person of the aor. precludes 
the assumption of its use as an epistolary 
. present. The parenthetical clause, how- 
ever, so immediately following the éad- 
Bete évrodas does certainly seem to sug- 
gest that these évytoAal were of a com- 
mendatory nature; compare Wieseler, 
Chronolog. p. 452, note. A few MSS. 
[DiFG; Syr., Arr.] read dé€acSa, prob- 
ably on the same hypothesis as that of 
Bengel. déFacde avtor] 
“receive him,’ t. e. with hospitality (comp. 
Matth. x. 14) and friendly feelings (Luke 
ix. 48, John iv. 45). The historical de- 
duction, founded on the use of the sim- 
ple défacde (contrast Acts xxi. 17), that 
St. Mark had. not been in the neighbor- 
hood of Colosse, and would not have 
been recognized as an assistant of St. 
Paul (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 567), seems 
not only precarious but improbable. 

ll. "“Incots 6 Aey. “lodaros| 
Mentioned only in this place; probably 
not identical with Justus of Corinth 
(Acts xviii. 7). Tradition represents 
him as afterwards bishop of Eleutherop- 
olis. oi bytes Ex TeptT.] 
‘ who are of the circumcision ;’ participial 
predication in reference to the three pre- 
ceding nouns. Meyer, Lachmann, and 
Buttm. (ed. 1856) remove the stop after 
mepitoufjs, and regard the clause as in 
the nom. (‘per anacoluthon’), instead 
of being in the more intelligible partitive 
genitive. Such an anacoluthon is not 
uncommon (see Jelf, Gr. § 708. 2), but 
does not seem here necessary as the 
udévot naturally refers the thought to the 
category last mentioned ; ‘these only of 
that class are my helpers:’ compare 


Philem. 24, where, though Luke and 
Demas are grouped together with them 
as ouvepyol, the same general order is 
still preserved. On the formula eiva: éx, 
with abstract substantives, in which é« 
retains its primary meaning of origin, 
compare notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. 
on Rom. ii. 8, Vol. 1. p. 105. 

eis thy Bacta.] ‘unto, towards, the 
kingdom of God:’ ‘ adjuyerunt Paulum 
ad regnum Messianum qui ei, quum 
homines idoneos redderet qui in illud 
regnum aliquando reciperentur, opitulati 
sunt,’ Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. 111. p. 
201. Onthe term BaoiAcia @cod, see an 
elaborate paper by Bauer (C. G.) in 
Comment. Theol. Part 11. p. 107-172, and 
Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 
244, olrives évyev] ‘men 
who proved ;’ the indefinite dos being 
here used in what has been termed its 
classific sense, and pointing to the cate- 
gory to which the antecedents belong ; 
see notes on Gal. ii. 4, iv. 24. The pas- 
sive form éeyevnd., condemned by Thom, 
M. p. 189 (ed. Bern.), and rejected by 
Phrynicus, p. 108 (ed. Lobeck), as a 
Doric inflexion, occurs not uncommonly 
in the N. T. (noticeably in 1 Thess.), 
but, as a careful comparison of parallel 
passages seems to show, without any 
clearly pronounced passive meaning, or 
any justly appreciable difference from 
éyevero; comp. Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, p. 
50. mwapnyopta| ‘a com- 
fort ;’ an G@mat Aeydu. in the N. T. but 
not uncommon elsewhere, see the exam- 
ples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p.. 330; add 
also ZEsch. Agam. 95, where the term 
seems to involve a slightly medical al- 
lusion. The distinction of Beng. ‘za- 
pauudia in meerore domestico, mapnyopla 
in forensi periculo,’ does not seem sub- 
stantiated by lexical usage. Perhaps 


Cuar. IV. 12, 18. 


COLOSSIANS. 


207 


7 \ / na nr 7 b] A / / 
eis THY Bactheiav Tod Oeod, oitwes éeyerySnody por Trapnyopia. 


12 


aoraveras twas Erradppas 6 €& tpdv, So0d0s Xpiotod "Inood, 


u ¢ QC \. Lal Lal lel 
Tavrote aywvitdwevos UTEp LuadV €v Tals Tpocevyais, va oThre 


TEELOL KaL TETTANPOpopHuevoL €v TaVvTl SeAjpate TOV Ocod. 13 joap- 


the only real distinction is that mapyyo- 
pewy and its derivatives admit of physical 
and quasi-physical references which are 
not found with the more purely ethical 
Tapupuseiosa: ; see the good lists of ex- 
amples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. vv. 

12. "Eragppas] See notes on ch.i.7; 
he is specified in the same way as One- 
simus, as a native ot Colosse. For the 
probable reason of the addition, see notes 
on ver. 9. dovAos Xp. 
*Ino.| Meyer, and after him Alford, fol- 
lowing Griesb. (who, however, reads 
only Xpiored), join these words with 6 é 
juay: this certainly seems unnecessary, 
the title SodA0s Xp. “Inc. is of quite suffi- 
vient weight and importance to stand 
alone as a title of honor and distinction ; 
so apparently Copt., as it inserts the def. 
art. before do0A0s. In Auth. (Polyel.) 
the position of the pronoun of the 3d 
pers. [appy-. here for the verb subst., Lu- 
dolph, Gr. p. 135] might seem in favor 
of the other mode of punctuation ; Syr. 
seems in favor of the text. The inser- 
tion of *Incod after Xpiotod (Lachmann, 
Tisch.) has good critical support [ABCJ ; 
10 mss.; Vulg., Copt., Arm.] and is 
rightly adopted by most modern editors. 
&ywviCduevos| ‘striving earnestly ;’ 
compare Rom. xv. 30, where the com- 
pound cuvaywr. occurs in a similar con- 
text; compare ch. ii. 1, and notes én Joc. 
fva at7re| ‘that ye may stand fast ;’ 
purpose of the dywyi(éuevos, the more 
emphatic @yer(du. ev mpocevx. (not 
merely mpooevxéuevos) not requiring any 
dilution of the telic force of iva; comp. 
notes on Eph. i. 17. Srijvat has here, as 
in Eph. vi. 11, 13, al., the meaning of 
standing firm and unshaken amidst trials 
and dangers (see notes on Ephes. ll. cc.), 
and is more nearly defined by the follow- 


ing adjectives and their associated semi- 
local predication év mavt) SeAfpare. 
TéA€OL Kal weTAnpOD.| ‘perfect 
and fully assured ;’ secondary predicates 
of manner (Donalds. Cratyl. § 303), the 
first referring to their maturity and per- 
fectness (ch. i. 28, Eph. iv. 13), the sec- 
ond to their firm persuasion, and the ab- 
sence of all doubtfulness or scrupulosity. 
On the distinction between téAeios and 
6AdKAnpos (‘omnibus numeris absolu- 
tus’) see Trench, Synon. § 22, and be- 
tween Téa. and &prtios, notes on 2 Tim. 
iii. 17. The reading memAnpod. is adopt- 
ed by Lachmann and Tisch. [with ABC 
DifG; 6 mss.], and both on external 
and on internal grounds is to be pre- 
ferred to memAnpapévar (Rec.). 
év wmavtTl SeAHpaT | ‘inevery (man- 
ifestation of the) will of God,’ i.e. ‘in ev- 
erything which God willeth’ (Winer, Gr. 
§ 18. 4, p. 101), which, though not gram- 
matically, yet in common usage becomes 
equivalent to ‘in all the will of God,’ 
Auth. It is doubtful whether these 
words are to be joined with the finite 
verb (Meyer, Alf.; compare Rom. y. 2, 
1 Corinth. xv. 1), or with the secondary 
predicates TéAe1ot rad memAnpo. (De W.). 
The latter is most simple, as defining 
the sphere in which the teAcdérns and 
TAnpopopia was to be evinced and find 
its realization ; so Chrys., Theoph., and 
perhaps Coptic, Gothic, who even with 
meTrAnpwuevor (comp. on Eph. v. 18) con- 
nect éy may7) Sed. with the secondary 
predicates. The Vyv., however, in such 
cases cannot be appealed to with confi- 
dence, as they commonly preserve the 
ambiguous order of the original. 

13. paptup® ydp| Confirmatory 
(yap) testimony to the earnestness and 
activity of Epaphras. woAvy 


208 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuapr. IV. 13-15, 


a \ > SOP 4 \ / e \ “e a \ a I A 
TUPO yap avT@ OTL Eyer TOY TOvOY UTEP LLaV Kal TaV ev Aao- 

i ‘ na b] € lf 14 > , e an A a Le} \ 
Siceia Kal tov év ‘Ieparone. ™ aowdSerar vas Aovkds 0 tatpos 
6 ayarnros Kat Anuas. » domacacSe rods év Aaodixeia aderpors 


a évov] ‘much labor ;’ not such as that 
which attends a combat (Eadie), but, as 
the etymological affinities of rdvos [con- 
nected with mévouat, and probably derived 
from SIA-, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 
If. p. 860] seem to suggest, such as im- 
plies a putting forth all one’s strength 
(intentio) ; compare Suidas évos+ orov- 
64, ériracts. The word is rare in the 
N. T., only here and Rey. xvi. 10, 11, 
xxi. 4. This may account for the vari- 
ety of reading; kérov, DIFG; (¢HaAov 
D2D°EKL (Rec.). The text is support- 
ed by ABC; 80; Coptic (emkah), and 
indirectly by DIFG: so Lachm., Tisch. 
Aaodixeia| Fora brief notice of this 
city, see notes on ch. ii. 1. 
‘IepamwoaAci| An important city of 
Phrygia, about twenty English miles 
NNW. (surely not ‘ Ostlich,’ Winer) of 
Colossx, celebrated for its mineral 
springs, and a mephitic cavern called 
Plutonium, which was apparently con- 
nected with the worship of the ‘Magna 
Mater ;’ see Strabo, Geogr. x111. 4. 14 
(ed. Kramer), Pliny, Hist. Nat. 11. 93 
(ed. Sillig). The site of Hierapolis ap- 
pears to have been close to the modern 
Pambuk-Kulasi, round which extensive 
ruins are still to be traced ; see Forbiger, 
Alt. Geograph. Vol. 11. p. 848, 349, Arun- 
dell, Seven Churches, p. 79 sq., ib. Asia 
Minor, Vol. 11. p.-200 sq., and a good 
article in Kitto’s Bibl. Cyclop. Vol. 11. p. 
848. Itis curious that this city should 
apparently have been unnoticed in Pau- 
ly, Real. Encycl. 

14. Aoveas] The Evangelist, who 
according to ancient tradition (Ireneus, 
Heer. 111. 14. 1, ‘ creditus est referre no- 
bis evangelium’) has been regarded as 
identical with the iatpds. a@yarnrds here 
mentioned. The tradition that he was 
a painter (Nicephor. Hist. Eccl. 11. 13) 


is late and untrustworthy. Thereseems 
no etymological grounds whatever for 
identifying him further with the Lucius 
mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21 (Origen) : 
Lucas may have been a contraction of 
Lucanus, or possibly even of Lucilius, but 
not of Lucius. For further notices see 
notes on 2 Tim. iv. 11. The addition 6 
iarpbs 6 ayarntds may possibly have 
been intended to distinguish the Evan- 
gelist from others of the same name 
(Chrys.), but more probably is only a 
further designation similar to those given 
to Tychicus (ver. 7), Onesimus (ver. 9), 
Aristarchus, Mark (ver. 10), Justus (ver. 
11), and Epaphras (ver. 12). 

Anas] Mentioned as one of the apos- 
tle’s ovvepyot (Philem. 24), but too well 
remembered as having deserted: him in 
the hour of need; see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 
10. Whether the omission of a title of 
honor or affection is accidental, or owing 
to his having already shown symptoms 
of the defection of which he was after- 
wards guilty (Meyer), cannot be deter- 
mined. The latter does not seem im- 
probable, especially as he here occupies 
the last place in the enumeration ; con- 
trast Philem. 24. 

15. Nuu@pav) ‘and (among 
them) Nymphas,’ kat being here used to 
add the special to the general (see notes 
on Eph. v. 18, vi. 19), and to particular- 
ize Nymphas, who apparently belonged 
to Laodicea and, as the following words 
seem to show, was a person of some im- 
portance: dpa yody mas Selkvuor pméyay 
Tov &vdpa, Chrys., — who, however, adds 
too restrictively, e% ye 7 oikia avTod ék- 
kAnola; compare notes on Philem. 2. 
The repetition of the more generic 77 
Aaod. éxeA. in ver. 16 would seem to 
show that the church in the house of 
Nymphas did not comprehend all the 


kat 


Cuap. IV. 15, 16. 


COLOSSIANS. 


209 


a \ 4 > > > a y 
Kal Nupdav Kat thv Kat oixoy avtod éxxrnciav. ™ Kal dtav dva- 


¥7 Sete as > ey 9 ee , 7 APs n A 5 L 
yVoo js Tap ULV 1) ETTLO TOAD, TTOLIOATE LWA KAL EV T)) LLAOOLKE@V 


KKAno la a 37, Kal THY ex Aaodixelas Wa Kal byes a a 
exkrAnolg avayvoosh, vy) sy L tpels avaryverte. 


Christians of Laodicea. The form Niu- 
gas (Lachm., Buttm., with B?) is not cor- 
rect; the last syllable is circumflexed, 
and marks a probable contraction from 
Nymphodorus (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi1, 2), 
as ’OAvumas (Rom. xvi. 15) from Olym- 
piodorus, Zynvas (Tit. iii. 13) from Zeno- 
dorus ; compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 
309. ; kat oikov avuTod| 
So Rom. xvi. 5, in reference to Prisca 
and Aquila, who had also at Corinth 
(1 Cor. xvi. 19) devoted their house to 
a similar righteous use; compare on Phi- 
lem. 2, and see especially Neand., Plant- 
ing, Vol. 1. p. 151, note (Bohn). The 
reading is somewhat doubtful. The text 
is supported by DEFGKL; great ma- 
jority of mss. ; Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., 
Tisch.), and appy. rightly, for though 
a’tav [AC; 7 mss.; Slav. (ms.)] is not 
improbable as at first sight a more diffi- 
cult reading, it may still have easily 
arisen from the preceding plural, and 
the desire, even at the expense of the 
sense, to identify the whole church of 
Laodicea with that in the house of Nym- 
phas. If airay be adopted (Mey., Alf.), 
then the plural must be referred to 
‘Nymphas and his family,’ involved ka- 
7a civeow in the preceding substantive ; 
see Jelf, Gr. § 379. b, compare Winer, 
Gr. § 22.3, p.132. Lachm. reads adrijs. 
but on authority [B ; 67**] manifestly 
insufficient. 

16. 7 €mtaotoarn] ‘the present let- 
ter ;’ compare Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Thess. v. 
27. Several cursive mss. add air, but 
quite unnecessarily ; see Winer, Gram. 
§ 18.1, p. 97. 
mothoate iva] ‘cause that;’ a form- 
ula of later Greek (John xi. 37, compare 
Rev. iii. 9), though not without parallel 
in the roieiv 8rws (Jelf, Gr. § 666, obs.) 
of the classical writers. The proper force 


of iva, though weakened and somewhat 
approximating to the lax use of rod with 
the infinitive after moveiy (Acts iii, 12, 
Josh. xxii. 26, al.), is not wholly lost; 
see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 301. 


Thy é€« Aaod.| ‘that from Laodicea,’ 
y 


= ™ Mae eh ~ 
not boop —< Asdo2i|> [que 
scripta est ex Laodicensibus] Syr., — 
but corrected in Philox., or ‘quam scripsi 
ex Laod.,’ Ath. (compare Theod.), but, 
with the usual and proper force of the 
preposition, ‘ that out of Laodicea,’ ‘ boei 
ist us Laud.,’ Goth., ‘ebdlchen Laod.,’ 
Copt., — two prepositions being really in- 
volved in the clause ‘ the Epistle sent to 
and to be received from or out of Laod.,’ 
but the latter, by a very intelligible and 
not uncommon attraction, alone ex- 
pressed ; compare Luke ix. 61, xi. 13, 
and see Winer, Gr. § 66. 6, p. 553, Jelf, 
Gr. § 647. a. The real difficulty is to 
determine what letter is here referred to. 
Setting aside attempts to identify it with 
the Ist Epistle to Tim. (Theophylact), 
the 1st Ep. of St. John (Lightf.), the Ep. 
to Philemon — an essentially private let- 
ter (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 452), two opin- 
ions deserve consideration ; —(a) that it 
is the Epistle to the Ephesians ; (b) that 
it is a lost Epistle. For (a) we have the - 
similarity of contents, and the probabili- 
ty, from the absence of greetings and lo- 
cal allusions, that the Ep. to the Ephe- 
sians was designed for other readers than 
those to whom it was primarily ad- 
dressed. Against it, the great improba- 
bility that the apostle should know that 
his Epist. to the Ephesians would have, 
reached Laodicea at or near the time of’ 
the delivery of his Ep. to the Colossians. 
For (6) we may urge the highly proba- 
ble circumstance that Tychicus might 
have been the bearer of the two letters 
27 


210 


M «ai elrate “Apyinm@ Brére 
Kupie, va abr mAnpois. 


to the two neighboring cities, leaving 
that to Laodicea first, with orders for the 
interchange, and then continuing his 
journey. Against it there is the & priori 
improbability that a letter which, from 


the present direction given by the apos-. 


tle, stood apparently in some degree of 
parallelism to that to the Colossians (we 
have no right to assume that it was ‘ of 
a merely temporary or local nature,’ 
Eadie; see contra Meyer), should have 
been lost to the Church of Christ. The 
fact that the orthodox early Church (com- 
pare Jones on Canon, Part 111. 6) does 
not seem to have ever acquiesced in (}) 
makes the decision very difficult; as, 
however, the Ep. to the Colossians does 
appear to have been written first, —as 
the title tots é€v "E@éow (Eph. i. 1) does 
seem to preclude our assigning to that 
Epistle a further destination than to the 
churches dependent on Ephesus (see crit. 
note on Hph. i. 1),— as there does seem 
a trace of another lost Ep. (1 Cor. v. 9), 
—as the close neighborhood of Colossz 
and Laodicea might prepare us to admit 
a great similarity in contents, and conse- 
quently a very partial loss to the Church, 
—and lastly, as @ priori arguments on 
such subjects are always to be viewed 
with some suspicion, we decide in favor 
of (b), and believe that an actual Epistle 
to the Laodiceans is here alluded to, 
which, possibly from its similarity to its 
sister-Epistle, it has not pleased God to 
preserve to us: see Meyer, Hinl. z. Eph. 
p- 9 sq., where the question is fairly ar- 
gued. It may be added in conclusion 
that the above reasoning rests on the as- 
sumption that the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians was written to that Church, and 
that the words éy’Edpéom are genuine. 
It is right, however, to add that the new- 
discovered N rejects them, and that thus 
an important authority has been added 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 16, 17, 


Tv Svakoviay iv mapédaBes év 


to the side of those who deem that a 
blank was left for the name of the 
Church, and that the Epistle was purely 
encyclical. Jf this view (which still 
seems very doubtful) be adopted, the bal- 
ance will probably lean more to (a) ; at 
present, however, no more need be said 
than this, that the’title of the Epistle to 
the Ephesians and the present question 
may justly be considered as in somewhat 
close connection. The forged Epistle 
to the Laodiceans deserves no notice, 
being a mere cento out of St. Paul’s 
Epistles ; see Jones, on Canon, Part 
711. 6: 

17. ’Apxtmm@| A church-officer of 
Colossz,—not of Laodicea (Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 452, compare Const. Apost. 
vit. 46); possibly an instructor (Theod. 
Philem. 2), but more probably a friend 
(Chrys., Theophyl. 7b.) of the household 
of Philemon, — if, indeed, on account of 
the position of Arch. in the salutation 
(Philemon 2), not more nearly related 
(compare Olsh.). What the d:axovia of 
Archippus was, cannot be determined ; 
that he was a didxovos in the literal mean- 
ing (compare Wordsw.), does not seem 
improbable. ‘Tradition represents him 
to have suffered martyrdom at Chone ; 
see Menolog. Gracum, Nov. 23, Vol. 1. p. 
206. <A brief notice will also be found 
in the Acta Sanctorum, March 20, Vol. 
111. p. 82. On the somewhat unusual 
(Ionic) form e¥rare (Matth. x. 27, xxi. 
5), see Winer, Gr. § 15, p. 78. 

BarAéme thy Staroviar] ‘see to, take 
heed to, the ministry ;’ somewhat too 


v 
strongly Syriac, say |diligens esto], 
though rightly preserving the construc- 
tion: for examples of this meaning of 
Baémew see Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 272, 
and comp. on Eph. v.15. Grotius and 
others assume here a Hebraistic inversion 


Cuap. IV. 18. 


Autograph salutation and 
benediction. 


pooveveTé prov TOV SEecpLav. 


for BAére tva mAnp.,—a needless viola- 
tion of the order of the words and of the 
more usual meaning of fva; the object 
of the BAérey tiv Siaxovlay on the part 
of Archippus was to be iva a’thy mAnpor ; 
compare 2 John 8, and notes on Gal. iv. 
11. The expression wAnpody Siakoviay 
occurs again Acts xii. 25; see examples 
in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 538, 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 831, and Wetst. 
in loc. mapéAaBes ev 
Kv pl] ‘didst receive in the Lord ;’ not 
‘per Dominum,’ Daven., nor ‘ secundum 
Domini precepta,’ Grot., but as always, 
‘in Domino,’ Vulg., Clarom., al. The 
Lord was, as it were, the sphere in which 
he had received his diakovia, and out of 
which it found no place; see notes on 
Eph. iv. 16, vi. 1, Phil. ii. 19, and else- 
where. The addition, as Meyer well ob- 
serves, still more enhances the obligation 
of Archippus to fulfil a d:axovia so re- 
ceived. 

18.6 domacuds x.7.A.] Auto- 
graph salutation of the apostle, to attest 
the authenticity of the document (2 
Thess. iii. 17, contrasted with ib. ch. ii. 


COLOSSIANS. 


211 


8 “O doracpos TH eh xevpt TIavdvov. pvy- 
nH Xapls meY Dov. 


2); compare 1 Cor. xvi. 21, and notes 
on Gal. vi.11. The gen. MavaAov is in 
apposition to the personal pronoun in- 
volved in éuy ; see examples in Jelf, Gr. 
§ 467. 4. bMunmoveveTte 
Mov Tv Secuey| ‘REMEMBER MY 
BONDS.’ A touching exhortation, speak- 
ing vividly to the hearts of his readers, 
and breathing patience, love, and encour- 
agement ; weylorn 5& mapdKAnots avrois 
eis Tacav SAbbw Td wynuovedery TavAov 
dedeuévov, Theoph., compare Chrysost. 
The remark of Eadie is just, that as the 
apostle used his hand to write he felt his 
bonds yet more keenly, but he should 
have remembered, that it was (in all 
probability) not the /eft but the right 
hand that was bound to the soldier that 
guarded him; see Smith, Dict. Antiq. 
8. v. ‘ Catena,’ p. 207. 

h xapis| ‘Grace,’ nar’ ekoxty; see 
notes on Eph. vi. 24, and on the various 
meanings of xdpis, Waterl. Euchar. x 
Vol. tv. p. 666. The duhy of Rec. is 
found in DEKL; Vv. and Ff., but is 
rightly rejected by modern editors on 
preponderant uncial authority. 


ve 7 ‘ rer Us Vie 
Fa, Ta) ce eae 


i tf 
me, 
bennett HA) 


‘ a ‘i te ol 
ners merely 
haa © 


7 an ~ ih Tae 
wos ier 





THE EPISTLE TO PIILEMON. 


. 





ot al 


sibs a 


4 inom rl)’ eMnmoto) e vhal 
coe Dan Manito }): rf 4 ey it ee PU.) 
Pigs eet ett: goer ot oliemget aot Saag 
Buso’ aie W eiawon® nd | Whkege a > ae by 
* erga ed) 
ud dip dae bornhine > ae 
ibid i ebtawot “pnibaiay” iS ‘fe 34) 





INTRODUCTION. 


TuHIs exquisite and interesting Epistle, alike a master-piece of persuasive 
tact and delicacy, and an enduring model of truest Christian courtesy, was 
written by St. Paul to Philemon closely about the same time as the Epistle to 
the Church of Coloss, and not improbably stands first in the group of Epis- 
tles written during the first captivity at Rome; comp. Davidson, Introd. Vol. 
Im. p. 158. It would thus have been written about A.D. 61 or 62: see Introd. 
to Colossians. 

It was addressed to Philemon, most probably a member of the Church of 
Colossz (ver. 2, compared with Col. iv. 9, 17), who had originally been con- 
verted to Christianity by the apostle (ver. 19), and who, from the honorable 
title of ‘fellow-laborer’ (ver. 2; compare ver. 24 and Col. iv. 11), coupled 
with the notice of ‘ the church in his house’ (ver. 2) and the general tone of 
the Epistle, appears to have been a person of distinction, worth, and Christian 
zeal and earnestness (ver. 7). The bearer of the Epistle was Onesimus, a 
slave who had run away from, and as it would seem robbed Philemon (ver. 18), 
but who now, after having had the blessing of meeting with St. Paul at Rome, 
and of being converted to Christianity by him (ver. 10), was returning to the 
master he had wronged, changed and repentant, especially commended to his 
love and forgiveness (ver. 17), and mentioned, not without honor (Col. iv. 9), 
to the Church of which both were now alike to be members. His fellow trav- 
eller was Tychicus, the bearer of the Epistles to the Churches of Colosse and 
Ephesus (Col. iv. 7, Eph. vi. 21), to whose care and good offices he was not 
improbably further committed, and who might have been instructed by the 
apostle to induce the Colossian Christians generally to receive the hitherto 
uprofitable servant (comp. ver. 11) with forbearance and favor. 

The object of the Epistle is very clearly set before us,— an affectionate 
desire on the part of the apostle to restore Onesimus to the confidence and 
love of his master, and to insure for him a reception which he might justly 
have been considered wholly to have forfeited. The exquisite tact with which 
his fraudulent conduct towards Philemon is alluded to (ver. 18), — the ab- 


216 INTRODUCTION. 


sence of everything tending to excuse or palliate the misdeed, yet the use of 
every expression and sentiment calculated to win the fullest measures of Phi- 
lemon’s forgiveness, — has never failed to call forth the reverential admiration 
of every expositor of this Epistle from the earliest times down to our own day. 

The originality with which the Epistle is thus stamped, and the strong 
external testimonies of antiquity which, short as this Epistle is, are by no 
means wanting (Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 42, Origen, Hom. xix. in Jerem.; in 
Matth. Tract. xxx. xxxiv., Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 111. 25), may justly be 
said to place its genuineness and authenticity beyond all doubt. It appears, 
however, to have been carped at in early times (see Jerome, Prowm. in Phi- 
lem.), and has recently been considered by a modern critic (Baur, Apostel 
Paulus, p. 475 sq.) as of doubtful authorship, but on grounds so utterly unten- 
able that we may with justice refuse to notice what the very author of the 
criticism seems to feel (p. 476) is open to the charge of an undue and unrea- 
sonable scepticism. 


THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Apostolic address and salu- 
tation. 


AYAOZ Sécpu0s Xpictod *Inood kar 


TipoSeos 6 adeAdos Piryjpov TH aya- 


THTO Kal cvvepy@ huav ? kal Aria Th aderpp kai Apyinrp TO 


2. &derpn|] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with AD1IE'F G; 3 mss.; Claroman., 


Amit., Tol., Copt., Ath. (Platt); Hes., Hier. (Meyer). 


In his later edd. Tisch. 


reverts to the reading of Rec. with D°E®KL; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both, — but 


Philox. with asterisk) ; Theod.-Mops. (expressly), Chrys., Theod., al. 


The ex- 


ternal authorities are thus very nearly balanced ; it does not, however, seem im- 
probable that the supposed connection between Philemon and Apphia might have 


led to the same title being applied to each. 


1. S€optos Xp. *Ina.] ‘a prisoner 
of Christ Jesus,’ ‘whom Christ Jesus and 
His cause have made a prisoner ;’ gen. 
of the author of the captivity ; see Wi- 
ner, Gram. § 30. 2, p. 170 (ed. 6), and 
notes on Eph. iii. 1, 2 Tim. i. 8. Con- 
sidering the subject of the Epistle, no 
title could be more appropriate, or more 
feelingly prepare Philemon for the re- 
quest which the apostle is about to make 
to him. On the titles adopted by St. 
Paul in his salutations, see notes on 
Phil. i. 1, and especially on Col, i. 1. 
kal Tiuzédseos] Associated with the 
apostle in the same way as in 2 Cor. i. 
1, Col. i. 1, each having a separate, and 
not, as in Phil. i. 1 (compare 1 and 2 
Thess. i. 1), a common title; see notes 
on Phil. i., and on Col. i.1. The associ- 
ation of Timothy in a letter which has 
the character of a private communication 
was perhaps, as Chrys. suggests, doe 
KaKeivoy brd ToAAGY GkLodmevoY MaAAoV 
eléc nad Sodvar Thy xdpwv. 

28 


$:Ahpwovi] Philemon was a member 
of the Church of Colossz (compare Col. 
iv. 9), who owed his conversion to St. 
Paul (verse 19), and who by his zeal in 
the Christian cause (verse 5), showed 
himself worthy of the consideration and 
regard which the apostle evinces for him 
in this Epistle. There does not seem 
any good ground for the opinion of Wie- 
seler (Chronol. p. 452) that Philemon 
belonged to Laodicea ; his house at Co- 
lossze was shown in the time of Theodo- 
ret (Argum. ad Philem.), and tradition 
(Const. Apost. v11. 46) represents him as 
having been bishop of that city, —not of 
Laodicea, as Alford, Prolegom. p. 114. 
In the Menol. Gracum, Noy. 23, Vol. 1. 
p- 206, he is said to haye suffered mar- 
tyrdom with Archippus at Chon. 

cuvepy@ heey] ‘our fellow-helper ;’ 
more special designation suggested by 
the zeal of Philemon for the Gospel. 
The genitive quay, as the single article 
hints, belongs to ovvepy¢ and the verbal 


218 


PHILEMON. 


2-4, 


TWOTPATLOTY NUOV, Kal TH KaT oiKdV gov EKKAHTIA. ° yapus Kyiv 
\ > / > \ an \ id a \ / ’ fal n 
kal eipnvn ao Ocod Tatpos nuav Kal Kupiov ‘Incod Xpictod. 


I thank God for thy prog- 
ress in faith, and pray that 


4 Evyapiot® 76 Oew pov, mdavTote pveiav 


it may prove beneficial to others : the proofs of thy love to the saints gladdens me. 


&yarnté, compare Rom.i.7. Both titles 
are dwelt upon by Chrys. and TheophyL.; 
the latter says, «i dyamntés, Seca Thy 
xdpw* ei cuvepyds, ov Kaséter Tov SovAov 
GAAG TdAW GmooTEAE? Tpds tmnpeciay TOU 
KNpUyLaros. 

2. °Amgta] Most probably, as sug- 
gested by Chrysos. and the Greek com- 
mentators, the wife of Philemon. If this 
be so, it is not improbable that Archip- 
pus may have been their son ; see notes 
on Col. iv. 17. The name ’Amopia, which 
in some mss. appears in the form *Ammia 
(see Acts xxviii. 15), is the softened 
form of the Latin ‘ Appia’ (Grot.). 
’Apximm@] Supposed by Wieseler 
(Chronol. p. 452), but without sufficient 
reason, to have been of the Church of 
Laodicea ; see notes on Col. iv.17. He 
is here distinguished by the honorable 
title of cvvorpatiétys with the apostle ; 
compare 2 Tim. ii. 3. On the Alexan- 
drian form ovvarp. see Winer, Gr. § 5. 
4, p. 46. 
gov éxka.] ‘the church in thy house ;’ 
not merely the household of Philemon, 
ovdé SovAous TapyKev évytaidsa, Chrys., 
but, as the expression seems regularly 
to designate, the assembly of Christians 
that were accustomed to meet at the 
house of Philemon, and join with his 
household in public prayer ; compare on 
Col. iv. 15, and Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. 
Vol. 1. p. 397. 

8. xdpis duty x.7.A.] Scil. etn, not 
éoTw (Koch); see notes on Eph.i.2: the 
regular form of salutation in St. Paul’s 
Epp. On the spiritual meaning of the 
blended form of address, see notes on 
Gal. i. 2, Eph. i.2; add also on Phil. i. 1. 
kal Kupiov] Scil. rat aad Kupiov t.7.A. 


‘ ye a“ 
as expressly in Syr. To wate [et a 


TH KaT oikdv 


Dom. nostro] : the Socinian interpreta- 
tion kal (rarpds) Kuplov seems very im- 
probable ; see notes on Phil. i. 2. 

4. evxaptora| Usual eucharistic 
commencement in reference to the spir- 
itual state of his convert; ‘a gratulatione 
more suo incipit,’ Calv.: see Rom. i. 9, 
1 Cor. i. 4, and notes on Phil.i. 1, where 
this mode of address is briefly alluded to. 
For the meaning and uses of evxapioreiv 
(‘gratias agere’) in earlier and later 
Greek, see notes on Col.i. 12. As in 
Rom. i. 8, 1 Corinth. i. 4, Phil. i. 3, the 
thanks are returned 76 ©e@ pov, to Him 
‘whose he was and whom he served’ 
(Acts xxvii. 23), a particularizing mode 
of address called forth from the warm 
heart of the apostle, by a remembrance 
of the great mercies vouchsafed to him 
in having thus been blessed in his labors ; 
comp. on Phil. i. 3. 
mdvtote «.7.A.] Participial sentence, 
defining more closely both when the ed- 
xapictia took place, and the circum- 
stances under which it was offered to 
God; ‘nunquam oro quin tui memine- 
rim,’ Est. The adverb is here, as also 
in Phil. i. 4, Col. i. 3, more naturally 
joined with the participle (Chrysostom, 
Theod.) than with the preceding edxa- 
pior@ (Syr., Aithiop.), see notes on Phil. 
i. 4, where the reasons for a connection 
with the participle are more distict than 
in the present case. 

Mvetav gov] ‘mention of thee,’ wvela 
receiving this meaning when in associa- 
tion with moeioSa: ; see notes on Phil. i. 
3. The formula is not uncommon in 
classical Greek (comp. Plato, Protag. 
p- 317 B, and a little more strongly ib. 
Phedr. p. 254 a), and, as Koch remarks, 
is an expansion of yew pyelay twos (1 
Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim, i. 3), the ‘dynamic’ 


5. PHILEMON. 


219 


lal lal , 
COU TroLovpEvos ETL TAV TpoTeVYa@V pov, © akovwY Gov THY ayaTnV 
a a 
Kal THY TicTW Hv exes Tpos TOV Kupioy *Incodv xa cis wavtas 


middle ovetoSa not being without its 
force and significance; comp. Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., and notes on Col. 
iv. i. éml Trav mpocevx ar] 
‘in my prayers,’ not merely ‘at the time 
of making them,’ but, with a tinge of 
local force, ‘in orationibus,’ Vulg., Syr., 
Copt., scil. when engaged in offering 
them; see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 23. a, p. 
246, and notes on Eph. i. 16. 

5. axovwy] ‘as I am hearing ;’ cau- 
sal participle (Donalds. Gr. § 616), giv- 
ing the reason for the evxapior, or, per- 
haps more exactly, for the circumstances 


which especially led to its being offered ; 
Tov Tv SAwy Oedy em) Tois Tots KaTopsA- 


pact dvupve, Theod.: contrast Rom. i. 
8, where edxap. is followed by the more 
definite 671, and the causal sentence is 
expressed in a passive form. 

Hv Exes] ‘which (faith) thou hast to- 
ward the Lord Jesus, and dost evince to- 
ward all the saints.’ There is some diffi- 
culty in these words. In the first place 
the reading is doubtful; Lachm., with 
ACD! ; 17. 187, reads eis roy Kipiov, 
and with DE; 10 mss.; Syr., al. inverts 
the order of aydanv and tictiwv. Both, 
however, seem corrections suggested by 
the somewhat unusual mloris mpds Kipioy, 
and the apparently anomalous connec- 
tion of ristw with eis mdyras rods aylous. 
Adopting the present text, we have two 
explanations ; (a) that of Meyer, recently 
adopted by Winer in the last edition of 
his grammar (§ 50. 2, p. 365), according 
to which riovis is taken as equivalent to 
‘fidelity, and justified by Rom. iii. 3, 
Gal. v. 22, and Tit. ii. 10, in the first of 
which passages the meaning occurs in a 
very different combination, while in the 
second it is more than doubtful (see 
notes in Joc.), and in the third is asso- 
ciated with an adjective; (b) that of 
Grot., al., derived from Theodoret and 


followed by De Wette, Alf., and most 
commentators, according to which rhv 
&ydrnv is to be referred by a kind of xu- ™ 
aopos (Jelf, Gr. § 904. 3) to eis mdvras 
Tous aylous, and thy miotw alone to rby 
Kupiov. Of these (a) does not seem ten- 
able, as it is surely very improbable that, 
in combination with aydarn, miotis should 
revert to a meaning so very unusual, and 
in St. Paul’s Epistles so very feebly sup- 
ported, as that of ‘ fidelitas.’? The sec- 
ond (0), grammatically considered, is ad- 
missible (see Winer, Gr. § 50. 2, p. 365), 
but the distinctive qv exes (see Meyer) 
and the repetition of the article with 
both substantives make it very unplau- 
sible. In this difficulty a 
third view seems to deserve considera- 
tion, according to which mioris mpds Tov 
Kip.=‘a faith directed towards the 
Lord’ (comp. 1 Thess. i. 8), in a purely 
spiritual reference, while miotis eis mdv- 
Tas kK. T. A. =‘a faith evinced towards 
(erga) the saints,’ with a more practical 
reference, scil. as shown in contributions 
to their necessities, —a meaning sug- 
gested to the reader by the preceding 
&ydrnv, and conveyed by the studied 
prepositional interchange. The prepo- 
sitions then substantially preserve the 
distinction alluded to in notes on Ephes. 
iv. 12, Tit. i. 1; mpds refers to a more 
remote, eis to a more immediate, applica- 
tion of the specified action, whether erga 
(2 Corinth. viii, 24, 1 Pet. iv. 9), contra 
(Rom. viii. 7), or with a more neutral 
ref. (2 Cor. x. 1, Col. iii. 9); compare 
Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. This seems 
also confirmed by etymology, for while 
eis (€vs) incorporates the idea of locality, 
of having reached the place (compare 
Donaldson Cratyl. § 170), rpds primarily 
presents little more than the idea of sim- 
ple motion forwards; see Donalds. 70. 
§ 169, 171. On the various construc- 


220 


PHILEMON. 6. 


\ a 
Tous aylous, © drrws ) KoWwvia THS TicTeas cov evepyns yévnTaL 
év éruyydoet Tavtos ayayov Tod év myiv eis Xpiotov "Inoodv. 


tions of mists and moretw, see Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p. 129. 

6. Srws| ‘in order that ;’ dependent 
On €vxapioT@, or perhaps more immedi- 
ately on pyelay cov motovmevos em) TaY 
mpocevxav, and conveying the object of 
the prayer (2 Thessalon. i. 12), perhaps 
slightly blended with the subject of it; 
eVxouat, dyciv, va, n Kowwvia rijs lo- 
Teds gov evepyns yevnta, Chrysost., and 
more distinctly Theod., d€oua: Kad avti- 
Boa@ tov Kowdy evepyérny, TeAciav oor 
dodvar Thy KThow Tay dyasav. To give 
the particle an exclusive reference to re- 
sult or consequence (Estius; compare 
Tittmann, Synon. 11. p. 55, 58), or to re- 
fer it to ver. 5 as giving the ‘ tendency’ 
of Hv @xeis (Beng., Meyer), is very un- 
satisfactory. Itis singular that two such 
good commentators as Beng. and Mey. 
should agree in an interpretation so ut- 
terly pointless ; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, 
p. 410. On the essential meaning of 
8rws, and its distinction from fa, see 
notes on 2 Thess. i. 12. 

Kotvwavia THs mhaTEws Gov] ‘com- 
munication of thy faith ;’ scil. ‘ participa- 
tion in thy faith enjoyed by others,’ zfo- 
teas being not a gen. subjecti, but, as 
more commonly (except with a personal 
pron.), agen. objeeti ; comp. Phil. ii. 1, iii. 
10, al. The clause thus serves to clear 
up, and indeed indirectly confirm the 
interpretation of the preceding mlotw eis 
mdytas Tovs aylovs. The meaning as- 
signed to kowwvia by Cicum., 7 Kowh 
mlotis, 7 Kowwmods, ‘ fides tua, quam 
communem nobiseum habes’ (Bengel), 
or the more concrete, ‘ beneficentia ex 
fide profecta’ (Estius, compare Beza), 
‘does not seem accordant with the use of 
xotvwvia in St. Paul’s Epistles when asso- 
ciated with a gen. rei ; compare notes on 
Phil. ii. 1. évepyis 
‘yévynta | ‘might become operative,’ scil. 


mm Oa Y ao ° ° 
{pass {slo boow [reddens frue- 
tus in operibus] Syr.; yivera évepyhs 
bray epya @xn, Chrys. The translation 
‘evidens,’ Vulg., ‘ manifesta,’ Clarom., 
appears to have arisen from a mistaken 
reading évapyns. év émey- 
voéoet wavtTds ay.| ‘inthe (complete) 
knowledge of every good thing ;’ sphere 
and element in which the évépyeim was 
to be displayed (see notes on Phil. i. 9), 
serving also indirectly to define the ‘ mo- 
dus operandi;’ mas 5& gota evepyhs; 
ia Tod emryvaval oe Kal mpdrrew wav ayar 
&év, Gicum., who however unnecessa- 
rily introduces kat mpdrrew, and incor- 
rectly limits it to Philemon, whereas the 
previous interpretation of xoivwrta shows 
that the reference is to others, to the xot 
vavol Tis tlarews gov ; see Meyer in loc. 
On the meaning of émiyvwois (‘accurata 
cognitio’), see notes on Eph. i. 17, Phil. 
i. 9, but observe that this force of ém 
cannot always be conveyed in translation ; 
compare on Col. i. 9. TOo 
év hmtv] ‘which isin us ;’ with special 
reference to them as Christians, and as 
recipients of the good gifts and graces of 
God. The reading is slightly doubtful. 
Lachmann omits rod with AC; 17, but 
on authority manifestly insufficient. 
Again Rec. reads suiv with FG; Vulg. 
(ed.), Syriac (both), Coptic, al., but on 
weak external, and still weaker internal 
evidence, as duty might have been easily 
suggested by a desire to conform to the 
dui in ver. 3. eis Xp. 
Ino.] ‘unto Christ Jesus,’ not merely 
‘in reference to Him,’ but with a closer 
adherence to the primary force of the pre- 
position, ‘ for the work of,’ ‘to the honor 
of, ‘erga Christum,’ Erasm. (compare 
notes on ver. 5); ‘ bonum nobis exhibi- 
tum redundare debet in Christum,’ Ben- 
gel. The words obviously belong to 


zt PHILEMON. 991 


od 


7 yapay yap ToAAnY Exyov Kal TapdKAnow ert Th ayaTN cov, OTL 
la na (ae ey b) f \ a > la 
Ta OTAYKVA TOV dyiov avarrérravTal Sia Tov adENé. 


7. xapdv] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with ACDEFG; 10 mss. ; apparently-all 
Vv.; Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz., Mey.). In edd. 2 and 7 Tisch. reads xdpw with 
KL; great majority of mss.; Chrys. (ms.), Theod., Dam., Theoph., al. (approved 
by Griesb., and adopted by A/f.). This latter reading has some little claim on our 
attention, on the principle ‘ proclivi lectioni prestat ardua,’ still as xdpw might 
have been suggested by the evxapior@ which precedes, it does not appear safe to re- 
verse so great a preponderance of uncial authority. 

érxov] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with ACFG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Copt. (ai-shz), 
ith. (Pol. and Platt), al.; Theod.; Lat. Ff. The plur. goyouey is found in D1E; 
Clarom., Sang.; Hier., al. (Meg., Alf.) ; the pres. Zxouev (before roAA}y) is found in 
D*JK ; great maj. of mss. ; Syr. (both) ; Chrys., Dam., Theoph., al., and adopted 
by Tisch. ed. 2,7. At first sight the plural (St. Paul and Tim., ver. 1) would seem 
to be the true reading, of which the text was an alteration. As, however, the change 
might have been due to the preceding 7juiy, we retain the best attested reading. 


éevepyhs yevnrat, not to what immediately foundation upon which the xapé aud 7a- 


precedes (Syr., Vulg., and more distinct- 
ly Ath. (Platt), cis being assumed = év), 
still less to the more remote ris mioreds 
cov, as Grotius. Lachm. omits 
*Inoody with AC; 2 mss.; Copt., th. 
(Polyb., but not. Platt); Hier., al., but 
without sufficient external authority. 

7. yap] It is somewhat doubtful 
whether this gives the (subjective) rea- 
son for the ebyapiotia, ver. 4 (Jerome, 
Mey.), or for the prayer immediately 
preceding (De W., Alf.). The latter is 
perhaps the most natural, as the subject 
of thanksgiving seems insensibly to have 
passed into that of prayer. The apostle 
prays that the kowwvila x.7.A. may prove 
évepynhs, for (‘sane rebus ita comparatis,’ 
Klotz) it is at present so great as to 
cause joy both to himself and to Timo- 
thy ; od por mappnotay Zdwkas ex Tay eis 
érépous yevouevwy, Chrys. 
éaxov| ‘I had;’ scil. when I first 
heard of your dydrny and miorty, ver. 5. 
The woaahy, as Meyer observes, appears 
to belong to both substantives ; compare 
Jelf, Gr. § 39. 1..obs. 
éml tH aydrn cov] ‘in thy love;’ 
literally, ‘based on thy love,’ ém with 
the dat., as usual, marking the basis and 


paka. rested ; see notes on Phil. i. 3. 
btt T& o@Adyxva] ‘because the 
hearts ;’ explanation of the preceding 
éml TH ay.; TOAATS yap eumiumrAayo Sv- 
endlas bre mavrodamhy rots arylos Sepa- 
melay mpoopépers, Theod. On the semi- 
Hebraistic omAdyxva (ver. 20, 2 Cor. vi. 
12, al.), see notes on Phil. i. 8: there, 
however, the idea of ‘ affection’ (mvev- 
Batik) pidocropyia, Theod. in loc.) is 
more predominant ; here the term only 
serves to specify the imaginary seat of 
it; comp. Liicke on 1 John iii. 17. As 
omAdyxva is a somewhat comprehensive 
term (‘ proprie sunt viscera illa, nobiliora 
vocata, cor, pulmones, hepar et lien,’ 
Tittmann, Synon. i. p. 68), the ethical 
applications may obviously be somewhat 
varied; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 
fi. p. 997. &vamwéetwavt atl 
‘have been refreshed ;’ so 1 Cor, xvi. 18, 
2 Cor. vii. 13. On the distinction be- 
tween dvdmavois, ‘ pause or cessation 
from labor,’ and &veo.s, ‘ relaxation of 
what had been tightly strained,’ see 
Trench, Synon. §.41. 

&5eAp€] Not ‘ Bruder in Wahrheit,’ 
De W.., Koch, but as Ath., ‘ frater mi,’ 
—in tones of earnest affection : ‘hoc in 


222 


Ibeseech thee for Onesimus, 
thy once unprofitable ser- 


vant, who left thee a ser- @ruTaoGELY GOL TO GVKOV; 


vant, to return a brother : 


PHILEMON. 


8, 9. 


8 Aid Todd ev Xpiors wappnotay exov 


9 Sia THY ayamnv 


receive him as myself, Ifhe be a defaulter, I will repay thee. 


fine positum multum habet mddos ; conf. 
Virg. An. v1. 836,’ Scip. Gent. ap. Poli 
Syn. 

8. 814] ‘ On which account,’ ‘as I have 
so much joy and consolation in thee ;’ 
not in connection with mapf. @xwv (du- 
vdwevos, onal, Sappety as Sepua@s wemi- 
atevxdrt, Theod.) ,as Syr. and the Greek 
commentators, but in ref. to the preced- 
ing xapav toxov — emt rH aydmp, express- 
ing more fully the motive of the da thy 
ay. waAAov mapax. Which follows ; so De 
Wette, Meyer, Alf. On the use of 61d, 
see notes on Gal. iv. 31, and for its dis- 
tinction from ody and &pa, see Klotz, De- 
var. Vol. 11. p. 173, but on the two latter 
particles contrast the more correct re- 
marks of Donalds. Gram. § 604, Cratyl. 
§ 192. mapp. Exwr] 
‘though I have boldness ;’? concessive use 
of the simple participle, see Donald- 
son, Gram. § 621, and compare the re- 
marks of Winer on the translation of 
participles, Gr. § 46. 12, p. 413, —ed. 5, 
apparently omitted in ed. 6. On the 
meaning of wapf.,—here in its deriva- 
tive sense of étovaela, ae, Hesych., — 
see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 18. This mappn- 
aia was év Xp.; He was the element in 
which (not 8: thy wlorw thy eis Xp., 
Chrys.) it was entertained, and out of 
which it did not exist: compare on Eph. 
iv. 1. émitdaoo. cot Td 
&vArov] ‘to enjoin upon thee that which 
is fitting ;’ explanatory infin. following 
a phrase expressive of ability or capabil- 
ity; compare Madvig, Synt. § 145. 1. 
The verb émitdoo. though not uncommon 
elsewhere in the N. T. is only found here 
in St. Paul’s Epistles: ém:tayn, on the 
contrary, occurs seven times in these 
Epistles, but not elsewhere in the N. T. 
The neuter 7d avjxov (comp. Eph. v. 4, 
Col. iii. 18), not exactly 7d eis xpelay mov 


, 


éasdv, Theoph., but more generically 
‘quod decet facere,’ Coptic I, 


Od 
we 2/> [illa quae justa) Syr., 7d mpémoy, 
Suid., marks the category (Meyer) to 
which the receiving back of Onesimus is 
to be referred. 

9. 51a THY &y.] ‘on account of love,’ 
‘ for love’s sake,’ Auth. ; partially explan- 
atory of the preceding 6:4, but witha 
more general reference, the dydan here 
not being hy Kaye &xw mpds ce, Theoph., 
or hy aya Té oe Kal Gryar@ucu, Cicum., 
nor even ‘charitas tua in Christum,’ 
Just., but, as the omission of all defining 
genitives seems to suggest, ‘ Christian 
love’ in its widest sense (De W., Mey.). 
The article gives the abstract noun its 
most generic meaning and application, 
Middleton, Gr. Art. v. 5. 1, p. 89 sq. 
totootos &yv| ‘Being such an one,’ 
‘As Iam such an one,’ scil. who would 
rather beseech for love’s sake, than avail 
myself of my mappyclay emrdooew. 
There is some little difficulty as to the 
connection of this participial clause. It 
is usually regarded as preparatory to the 
@s TWatdAos which follows, and is con- 
ceived to more nearly explain it. Meyer, 
however (whose note on this clause is 
very persuasive), shows that the unde- 
fined ro.odros, though often more nearly 
explained and defined by ojos, dare, nei- 
ther is, nor scarcely can be, associated 
with @s, which naturally presumes a 
more defined antecedent, and always 
‘aptius conjungitur cum sequentibus,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p 757. This be- 
ing apparently the case, roodros Sy must 
be referred to ver. 8, while os TlavAos 
mpecBvrns, enhanced by yur dé Kal Séo- 
juos 71. X., belongs to the second zapa- 
Kar@ (so Lachm., De Wette, and recently 
Buttm., Alf.), and states the capacity in 


9, 10. PHILEMON. 993 


HaAXoV TrapaKado. ToLodTos wv, ws Iladdos mpecBvrns, vuvi dé 
Kal décptos “Incod Xpictod, !° mapaxada ce Tepi Tov euod TéKvou, 


9. "Incod Xpiotovd] So Rec. with D*D®EFGKL; apparently great majority of 
mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Ath. (Platt), al.; Chrys., Theod. Lachm. and Tisch. 
reverse the order with AC; a few mss.; Copt., Auth. (Pol.), Iber., al. The evi- 
dence does not seem sufficient to justify the reversed order, especially as the best 
authorities give Xp. Ino. in ver. 1, which might easily have suggested the correc- 


tion. 


which the apostle makes his affectionate 
request. Lachm. it may be observed en- 
closes és MadAos in a parenthesis ; Buttm, 
isolates it by commas (so Chrys., ard 
THs ToLdTHTOS TOD TpoTwmov: ard TIS HAL 
klas* ard Tod Sikaorépov mdvTwy Ott Kal 
déouios x. T.A., compare Nth. [Platt]) ; 
both however unsatisfactorily : TladaAos 
seems more naturally to stand in imme- 
date union with mpecBurns (Syr., Copt.) 
and to hint at the title he might have 
assumed, ‘ Paul the Apostle.’ 

ampeaBurns| ‘an aged man,’ Auth., 


o0o 
‘senex,’ Vulg. Loss Syriac and appy. 
all Vy. It is quite unnecessary to at- 
tempt to explain away the simple mean- 
ing of this word (‘non statem sed offi- 
cium significat,’ Calvin, ‘ ein Senior der 
Christenheit,’ Koch), or to evade the al- 
most obvious reference to age; see Wolf 
inloc. If with Wieseler we assume as 
late a year as A. D. 39 for the martyrdom 
of Stephen, and consider the veavias at 
that time as no more that 25 or 26, the 
apostle would now (probably a. p. 62) 
be nearly 50, which, broken as he was 
with labor, suffering, and anxieties (2 
Cor. xii. 24-28), might well entitle him 
to the appellation of mpecBitns. If we 
follow the tradition in Pseud.-Chrys. 
Orat. de Petr. et Paulo (Vol. v111. spur. 
p-. 10, ed. Bened.), that St. Paul’s age 
was 68 when he suffered martyrdom, 
there will remain no doubt as to the ap- 
propriateness of the term. All attempts, 
however, to fix the year in which St. 
Paul was born seem hopeless; compare 


Winer, RWB. Vol. 11. p. 217. 
Séoputos “I. X.] Not did Xpiordy Sedeue- 
vos, Chrys., but, as in ver. 1, ‘one whom 
Christ and his cause have bound;’ see 
notes above, and Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 
170. 

10. rod éuod tréxvov] ‘my own 
child ;’ with tender reference to Phile- 
mon as being converted by the apostle, 
and owing to him his Christian exist- 
ence ; compare 1 Cor. iv. 14, Gal. iv. 
19, and Loesner, Obs. p. 481, who cites 
the partially parallel wa@AAov adrov 7) odx 
fittov Tay yovewy yeyevynia, Philo, Cai. 
§ 8, Vol. 11. p. 554 (ed. Mang.). The 
pronoun éeuod seems here emphatic. 
Lachm. and Meyer introduce éy& before 
éyevynca, but though on internal grounds 
not improbable, the external authority 
[A; 2 mss.; Slav. (ms.), Chrys. (1)] 
does not seem nearly sufficient to war- 
rant the insertion. év tots 
decors] With feeling allusion to the 
circumstances in which he was when 
Philemon was converted, and in which 
he now is again while urging his re- 
quest; mdéAw of Secuod Svowrntixot [ex- 
orandi vim habent], Chrys. The addi- 
tion od after decpots [Rec., Scholz, with 
CD?KL; al.] seems rightly rejected by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 

"Ovhaorpuov] Accusative, owing to an 
inverted form of attraction; the relative 
which would more usually (compare Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 24.1, p. 147) have been in 
the same gender and case as réxvov here 
follows the common regimen, passing 
into the gender of the latter substantive, 


224 


a ake 5) an al b] , 
ov eyevynoa év Tots Seopois, ’Ovijcipor, 


PHILEMON. 


11, 12. 


[ihe a Ff 
TOV TOTE GOL axpn- 


. \ A 
oTov, vuvi € col Kal Ewol evypnoToV, dv avéTemrApa cor. ” od de 


11. avéreupd cot] So Lachmann and Tischen. 1, with ACD!D; 17; Syr., Copt. 
(ha-pok), Aith. (both) ; Chrys. (xpbs o¢) ; Lat. Ff. (Meyer). In his second edition 
Tisch. omits co. with D*FGKL; nearly all mss. ; Amit., Fuld., Goth., Syr. (Phi- 


lox.) ; many Ff. (Rec. Alf.). 


Independently of external authority which seems to 


preponderate against the omission, it does not seem improbable that oo: should have 
been omitted on account of the two preceding repetitions in the same verse, and the 


ob 5¢ which immediately follows. 


and attracting it into its own case ; see 
Winer, Gram. § 24. 2, p. 149, § 66. 5, p. 
552. 

ll. rbv wore cor &xp.| ‘who was 
once unprofitable,’ ‘ unserviceable,’ scil. 
who once did not answer to his name 
(dvqomor), but by running away, and 
apparently also by theft (Chrys. on ver. 
18), proved himself &xpyoros. The word 
&xpnor. is an am. Acydu. in the N. Test. 
(evxpnotos, 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv 11), and is 
defined by Tittm. (Synon. 11. p. 12) as 
“quo uti recte non possumus,’ ‘ qui nul- 
lum usum prebeat.’ The distinction be- 
tween this and éxpeios (Matth. xxv. 30, 
Luke xvii. 10) is not very palpable: per- 
haps the latter rather implies 06 od« éo71 
xpela, ‘quo non opus est’ (Tittm.), ‘one 
who could be dispensed with,’ and hence, 
inferentially, ‘ worthless,’ &xpetov kal avw- 
pedés, Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 54, while &xpn- 
oros has less of a negative sense (ov xpn- 
owov) and more approximates to that of 
movnpés. It would seem, however, that 
axpetos belongs mainly to earlier, &xpy- 
oros mainly to later Greek. The 
play on the name, ’Ovjomov, tov mote 
&xpnorov (not noticed by the Greek com- 
mentators), has been recognized by the 
majority of expositors ; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 68. 2, p. 561. Any further allusion, 
Xpnords as compared with Xpioriavds 
(Koch), seems improbable and even un- 
tenable, compare Mey. in loc. 
oot nat éuot etx p.] ‘profitable, ser- 
viceable, to thee and to me.’ The eixpn- 
etla here alluded to has obviously a 


higher reference than to merely earthly 
service (comp. Chrys.) : Philemon had 
now gained in his servant a brother in 
the faith; St. Paul, one who owed him 
his hope of future salvation, and was a 
living proof that he had not run in vain. 
In the delicately added éuo) (Philemo- 
nem oiviliter preponit sibi,’ Beng.) it is 
somewhat coarse (Theoph., Corn. a 
Lap.) to find a hint that Philemon was 
to send him back to the apostle. On the 
various beauties and persuasive touches 
in this exquisite Epistle, see Marshall 
(Nath.), Serm. x111. Vol. 11. p. 327_ sq. 
(Lond. 1731). dv ave- 
meupd ool ‘I have sent back to thee,’ 
or even ‘I send back, etc.,’— epistolary 
aor.; present to the writer, but aoristic 
to the receiver of the letter; compare 
éreua, Phil. ii. 28, and see examples in 
Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249. 

12.60 5& airdyv] ‘But do thou 
(receive) him.’ The sentence involves 
an anacoluthon, which, however, affords 
but little difficulty, as ver. 17, in which 
the construction is resumed, suggests the 
natural supplement. The addition mpoo- 
AaBov [Rec. with CDEKL; al.] is well 
attested, but considering the tendency of 
St. Paul, esp. in relatival sentences, to 
pass into anacolutha (see examples in 
Winer, Gr. § 63.1, p. 500), rightly re- 
jected by Lachm., Tisch., and most mod- 
ern expositors as an ancient gloss. Zach- 
mann also omits od 8é [with AC; 17], 
but with little probability, as the omis- 
sion was apparently the result of an at- 


13. 


PHILEMON. 


225 


a \ \ , A 
avrov, TOOT éoTw Ta cua oTrayxva, © ov éym eBovdouny pos 


\ lo) 
€wauTov KaTéxew, iva UTEp ood 


tempt to evade the anacoluthon by join- 
ing évémeupa and aitéy; comp. Meyer 
(crit. note), p. 173. TO 
éua omrdyxval ‘mine own heart,’ 
‘meinos brusts,’ Goth. ; oftw yap aitdy 
ayarG kad ev TH Wuxi mepipépw, Theoph. 


The meaning adopted by Syriac a, 


o 4 
OSL) { poe? [sicut natum meum], 


ZXthiopic (Platt; Polygl. paraphrases), 
Theod., é« trav éuav yeyevynra omAdyx- 
vev, al., though perfectly defensible (see 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v., and the pertinent 
examples in Wetstein), does not here 


seem requisite or indeed satisfactory, as 


the paternal relation of St. Paul to Ones- 
imus was a purely spiritual one, and as 
orAdyxva appears nearly always in St. 
Paul to involve some special idea of af- 
fection, or, as here, of the seat of it: 
Meyer (after Grot.) quotes ‘ meum cor- 
culum,’ Plaut. Cas. 1v. 4. 14 (16) : com- 
pare notes on ver. 7. 

13. €y@ é€BovrAdunv] ‘LI (on my 
part) was purposing ;’ contrast 7%¢Anca, 
ver. 14, where not only the general dis- 
tinction between the verbs BovAoua and 
SéAw (see notes on 1 Tim. y. 14), but, as 
Meyer remarks, between the tenses, is 
accurately preserved. The imperfect 
points to the time when the design was 
formed, and to its non-fulfilment ; com- 
pare Bernhardy, Synt.x.3,p.373. The 
use of ndxdunv Rom. ix. 3 ( Alf.) though 
analogous, is not exactly similar, as this 
belongs to a use of the imperfect where 
there is a more distinct reference to a 
suppressed conditional clause ; see notes 
on Gal. v. 20. mpos 
épaurdy] ‘with myself;’ the proper 
and primary meaning of the preposition 
(‘motion toward,’ compare Donaldson, 
Cratyl. § 169) is often obscured in con- 


foot Stakovh év toils Secpots Tod 


nection with persons; see notes on Gal. ‘ 
i. 18, and Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 360. 
bmép cod] ‘in thy stead ;’ not simply 
for avri, but with a tinge of the more 
usual meaning of the preposition ‘in 
the place of, and thereby beneficially to 
thee ;’ compare Eurip. Alcest. 700, xat- 
Saveiv dep cod, and see Green, Gram. p. 
301. This more derivative meaning of 
the prep. cannot be denied (see Winer, 
Gr. § 47.1, p. 842), but has been unduly 
pressed in doctrinal passages ; compare 
notes on Gal. iii. 13, and Usteri, Lehrd. 
11.1.1,p.115. The exquisite turn that 
St. Paul gives to his intention of retain- 
ing Onesimus, viz. as a representative of 
his master (iva Tijs ofjs mot Siaxovlas éx- 
tlon 7d xpéos, Theod.), should not be 
left unnoticed. dtakovy| 
‘ might minister ;’ present, idiomatically 
referring to the time when the éBovadunv 
took place, and giving a vividness to the 
past by representing it as present; see 
Winer, Gr. § 41.%. 1, p. 258, and Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618: compare also 
Gal. i. 16, but observe that’ the use of the 
present is somewhat different; there an 
event is referred to which was still going 
on, here the diaxovia, in its more direct 
sense, had now ceased, as Onesimus was 
all but on his way home to his master. 
deguots Tod cvaryy.| ‘bonds of the 
gospel ;’ scil. ‘bonds which the gospel 
brought with it,— which preaching the 
gospel entailed on me,’ evayy. being a 
gen. auctoris; see Winer, Gr. § 30.2. B. 
note, p. 170, Hartung, Casus, p. 17. 
Again a delicate allusion to his sufferings 
(comp. v. 9), and to a state which could 
not fail to touch the heart of Philemon. 

14. xwpls 5é «.7.A.] ‘but without 
thy own approval :’ comp. Raphel, Annet. 
Vol. 11. p..642, who very appropriately 
cites Polybius, Hist. p. 983 (xv. 18. 4), 
29 


226 


PHILEMON. 


14, 15. 


evavyyeriou: ! yapls dé Ths os ydpns ovdev 73é\noa Trovjoat, 
7 \ e \ +) 4 A > f es > \ \ e A 
iva fu) ws KaTa avayKny TO ayaSov cov 7H, GANA KaTa ExovotoDV. 


Tiealpe \ iS \ n 5) / XY \ ¢ Y Wi ee 
TAaXa yap ola TOUTO EX WPLo n TT pos WpPaVv, LWA ALWVLOY AUTOV 


xwpls Tis ‘Pwpatwv yyduns ; compare ib. 
Ill. 21. 7, xwpls THs adtod yvdpns, ib. 
XXI. 8. 7, dvev rijs éxelvou yvduns (cited 
in Schweigh. Ler. Polyb. p. 89). Tvaun 
occurs a few times in the N. T., and in 
slightly varied senses; comp. Acts xx. 
3, where it has apparently the stronger 
sense of ‘design,’ and 1 Cor. i. 10, vii. 
25, 40, 2 Cor. viii. 20, where it has its 
more regular meaning of ‘ sententia’ or 
‘judicium ;’? compare Meyer on 1 Cor. 
i. 10, and Kypke, Obs, Vol. 11. p. 205. 

AXéAnoal ‘was willing;’ aor., see 
notes on ver. 13. 
avdyKnyv] ‘as if by necessity,’ ‘ compul- 
sion-wise ;’ the kara marking primarily 
the norma or manner according to which 
the action was done (see notes on Titus 
iii. 5), and thence the prevailing princi- 
ple to which it was to be referred (comp. 
examples in Winer, Gir. § 49. d, p. 358), 
while és marks the aspect which the ac- 
tion would have worn; see Bernhardy, 
Synt. vir. 2, p. 833, and notes on Eph. 
vy. 22, Col. iii. 23. Chrysost., and more 
fully Theophyl. and Gicum., rightly call 
attention to this insertion of the particle. 
Tos ayasdy cou ‘thy good,’ ‘thy be- 
neficence,’ ‘the good emanating from or 
performed by thee,—the gen. perhaps 
being not so much a mere possessive 
gen. as a gen. auctoris or cause efficien- 
tis; see notes on Col. i. 23. The exact 
meaning of the words is slightly doubt- 
ful; there seems certainly no reference 
to any manumission of Onesimus (Es- 
tius, Koch; contrast Maurice, Unity of 
NV. T. p. 659), nor merely to the kind 
reception which Philemon was to give 
him on his arrival (Hofmann, Schriftb. 
Vol. 11. p. 387), nor even to the ‘ benefi- 
cium’ which in this particular instance 
Philemon was to confer on the apostle, 
but, as the more abstract term suggests, 


¢ BS 
@S KaTaG@ 


‘beneficentia tua’ (Calv.), whether as 
shown in this or in other good and merci- 
ful acts generally. If the apostle had 
retained Onesimus, Philemon would have 
doubtless consented, but the 7d ayaSdy in 
the particular case would have worn the 
appearance (as) of a kind of constraint ; 
St. Paul, however, wished, as in this so 
in all other matters, that Philemon’s 7d 
ayaddv should be wy os KaT& dvdyKny 
GAAG KaTd exovotov. On the 
doubtful distinction in the N. T. between 
7) dyasoy and rd Kaddv, see notes on 
Gal. vi. 10. KaTa Exovotoy| 
‘voluntarily.’ The more usual periphra- 
sis for the adverb appears in the earlier 
Greek to have been ras’ éxovciav, Thu- 
cydides vi11. 27, or ef Exovotas, Soph. 
Trach. 724, by an ellipse of yvdéun. In 
the present case there may have been 
originally an ellipse of tpémoy (Porphyr. 
de Abs. 1.9, ka¥ éxovo.ov tpdmov) ; the 
expression, however, would soon become 
purely adverbial : comp. Lobeck, Phryn. 
p- 4. 

15. rdxa yap] ‘For perhaps ;’ rea- 
son that influenced the apostle in send- 
ing back Onesimus. The insertion of 
taxa (Rom. v. 7; more usually tax’ &y, 
in classical Greek) gives a softening and 
suasive turn to the admission of his con- 
vert’s fault, no less sound in principle 
(‘occulta sunt judicia Dei, et temera- 
rium est quasi de certo pronunciare quod 
dubium est,’ Hieron.) than judicious in 
its present use; kad@s 76, rdxa, va eit 
6 deomdrns, Chrys. ; taxa yap Kara Selav 
oixovoutay épuyev, Theoph. Both Chrys. 
and Jerome admirably illustrate from 
the history of Joseph the great feature 
of the providential government of God 
which these verses disclose, —‘ praesta- 
bilius ducere Deum de malis bona facere, 
quam mala nulla facere,’ Justin. in loc., 


2 


15, 16. 


PHILEMON. 


227 


améyns, © odxére @s Soddov, GAN’ brrép Sodrov, adeAgov ayarnrov, 


see August. Enchir. § 3, Vol. v1. p. 349 
(ed. Ben. 1836). 

éxwpladn] ‘he departed ;’ he does not 
say @puyev lest he should rouse up any 
angry remembrances in the mind of Phi- 
lem. : so Chrys., Gicum., and Theophyl. 
all of whom have admirably illustrated 
the delicate touches in this beautiful Ep. 
For examples of this sort of ‘ medial- 
passive,’ in which, however, not only the 
passive form, but passive meaning, is 
clearly to be recognized, see Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 52. 6. 1. 

mpos épav] ‘for a season;’ 2 Corin. 
vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5, and more definitely 1 
Thess. ii. 17, mpds kaipsy dpas. In the 
present expression the duration of the 
time is not expressly stated, but it may 
be inferred from the antithesis to have 
not been very long; compare Theophyl. 
in loc. The proper force of the prep. 
(‘ motion towards ’) may be easily recog- 
nized in the formula, especially when 
compared with its more appreciable force 
in such expressions as mpds éo7mépay 
(Luke xxiy. 29), al.; compare Bernhar- 
dy, Synt. v. 31, p. 564. The derivation 
of Spa is uncertain ; it has been connect- 
ed with the Sanser. vdra, ‘time’ (Ben- 
fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 328), but, per- 
haps more probably, with the Zend. jare, 
Germ. ‘Jahr,’ as apparently evinced in 
the Lat. ‘horno ;’ compare Pott, Htym. 
Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 8, 123. 
aidviov abtdy am] ‘mightest re- 
ceive him eternally, everlastingly,’ not 
merely ‘perpetuum,’ Beza (Grot. com- 
pares Hor. Epist. 1.10.41, ‘ serviet ster- 
num’), nor with any allusion to ‘ per- 
petua mancipia,’ Exodus xxi. 6, Deut. 
xv. 17 (Beza, Gent.), but ‘in xternum,’ 
Clarom., ‘aiveinana,’ Goth.; od« ev 7G 
mapdvrt wdvov Kap GAAS Kal év TE wérA- 
Aovtt, a diamavrds exns adrdy, odért 
SovAov GAAA TiuumTEpoy SovAov, Chrys. : 
so pertinently Estius, ‘servitus omnis 


hae vita finitur, at fraternitas Christiana 
manet in eternum.’ The tertiary predi- 
cate of time, aidémoy, is,not an adverb 
(Mey.), but, as its position suggests, an 
adverbial adjective involving a prolepti- 
cal statement of the result ; comp. Don- 
alds. Gr. § 489 sq., and see examples in 
Winer, Gr. § 54. 2, p. 412. On 
the compound améyew, in which, as in 
aroAauBavew xk. T. A., the prep. does not 
apparently so much mark the ‘ receiving 
back,’ as the ‘having for one’s own’ 
(‘sibi habere,’ Bengel, ‘ hinweghaben,’ 
Mey.), see notes on Phil. iv. 18, comp. 
Winer, Verb. Comp. rv. p. 8. 

16. ob}kéTL Bs SotAov] Changed 
spiritual relation in which he now would 
stand to his master; dare kal TG xpove 
Kexepdakas kal TH mort, Chrys. The 
particle &s almost convincingly shows 
that there is here no reference to manu- 
mission (comp. on ver. 14): though ac- 
tually a slave, he is not to be regarded 
in the ordinary aspect of one (see verse 
14); the inward relation was changed, 
the outward remained the same; comp. 
Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 318. 
imép SovAov]. ‘above a slave, more 
than a slave,’ ‘ufar skalk,’ Gothic, 


v7 

aad jo Ao [prestantior quam], Syr., 
sim. Ath. (Platt), Copt.; not ‘ pro ser- 
vo,’ Vulg., Clarom., which obscures the 
force of the preposition ; compare Matth. 
x. 24, 37, Acts xxvi. 13, in which the 
force of irép is somewhat similar, and 
see Winer, Gr. § 49. e, p.359. The ex- 
pression is explained by the following 
&deApdy ayarnréy; Onesimus was not 
now to be regarded in the light of a 
slave, but in a higher light, viz. as a be- 
loved brother; avr) SovAov axpiorou, 
Xpnoroy adeApdy aareiAnpas, Gicum. 

maéaAtora épmol] ‘especially, above all 
others, to me ;’ not directly dependent on 
&yannrév (Meyer), but, as d&yamnrds_in 


228 


PHILEMON. 


16-18. 


la al \ \ > 
pdrora euol, récw S& padddv cou Kai ev capki Kai ev Kuplo. 


- > rn x > f > / 
1 ef oby me éyers KoLWwvdv, TpochaBod avTov ws cue. ® et Sé TE 
? 


the N. T. has to a great degree lost its 
verbal character, a dative ‘of interest’ 
(Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4) attached to 
aber. ayar.; comp. Syr., Bengel. He 
stood in the light of an aeAp. aya. to 
St. Paul, whom he had now left, but 
much more so to Philemon, who had 
formerly known him as a mere dovAor, 
but who was now to have him as his 
own in a higher and closer relation than 
before. On the meaning and derivation 
of wdAvora, compare notes on 1 Tim. iv. 
10. kal év wapki K.7.A.] 
‘both in the flesh and in the Lord ;’ the 
two spheres in which Onesimus was to 
be wéaw maddAov an adeApds ayamnrds to 


Philemon than to the apostle, —‘ in the 
flesh,’ i. e. in earthly and personal rela- 


tions (Mey.), as having intercourse and 
communication with him on a necessa- 
rily somewhat altered footing ; — ‘in the 
Lord,’ as enjoying spiritual communion 
with him which he had never enjoyed 
before, — nearly kal ev tats cwmarixats 
imepnolats év Tats 
Schol., except that the idea must not be 
limited to tmnpecia; compare Theod., 
CEcum. To define év capx) more nearly 
(comp. Grot., al.) is neither here neces- 
sary nor in harmony with the general 
use of the word in St. Paul’s Epistles ; 
see notes on Galat. v. 16, and the elabo- 
rate notes of Koch, p. 99 sq.; ‘die Ge- 
gensitze, als Mensch und als Christ sind 
in ihrer ganzen Weite zu belassen,’ Mey. 
On the force of kal—xai (‘as well the 
one as the other’), see notes on 1 Tim. 
iv. 10. 

17. ei ody] ‘If then;’ summing up 
what has been urged, and resuming the 
request imperfectly expressed in ver. 12. 
On the ‘vis collectiva’ of oy (Gal. iy. 
15, Phil. ii. 29, see notes) and its re- 
sumptive force (Galat. iii. 5, see notes), 
both here united, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 


kal MVEUMATLKGLS, 


Ti Ops Pld s sles kotvwvdr] 
“a partner,’ scil. in faith, and love, and 
Christian principles generally, — not 
merely in sentiments (ef T& adTd pos 
ppoveis, emt Tots abtois Tpéxets, ei PiAov 
iryn, Chrys., Just.), or, still less likely, 
in community of property (‘ut tua sint 
mea, et mea tua,’ Beng., compare Beza, 
Pagn.), interpretations which here im- 
properly limit what seems purposely left 
unrestricted. ™pocAaBo 3 
&s éuél ‘receive him to thee as myself ;’ 
‘as you would me;’ in my spiritual af- 
fection towards him he is a part of my 
very self, compare ver. 12. The form 
mpocAauB. occurs in avery similar sense, 
Rom. xiv. 1, 3, xv. 7, the idea not being 
so much of a mere kindness of reception 
(compare Acts xxviii. 2) as of an admis- 
sion to Christian love and fellowship ; 
see Meyer on Rom. xiv. 1, and Fritz. in 
loc., who, bowever, in his translation ‘ in 
suum contubernium recipere,’ somewhat 
puts out of sight the Christian character 
of the reception which the context seems 
to imply. 

18. ef de] ‘But zf;’ contrasted 
thought (comp. Alf.), suggested by the 
remembrance of what might militate 
against the warmth of the reception. 
The dé thus does not seem petaBarixdv 
(Mey.), but preserves its usual opposi- 
tive force ; ‘ qui loquitur, etiam si nihil 
positum est ia oratione tamen aliquid 
in mente habet, ad quod respiciens illam 
oppositionem infert, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
Il. p. 365. noinnoéyv cel 
‘wronged thee,’ more specifically ex- 
plained by the ‘ mitius synonymon’ 
(Beng.) 4} épetAet. The Greek commen- 
tators draw attention to the tender way 
in which St. Paul notices that misdeed 
of the repentant Onesimus which must 
have tended most to keep up the irrita- 
tion of Philemon (oi eirev ExAepev, GAN 


1. 


PHILEMON. 999 


od 


nOiKnoe ce 7) OpeireL, TODTO uot EAAdya. 1 eye Taddos eyparva 


evpnudtepov, Hdlknoevy 7 OpetAe, The- 
oph.), and further, the kind and wise 
way in which he keeps it to the end of 
his letter ; dpa mod réSeue nal wéte 7d 
adikquas votrepoy peta Th TOAAG Ep 
TovTov mpoeureiy, Chrys. 
ToUTO éwol EAASYal ‘this set down 
to my account,’ scil. 8 Te Adiknod ce 
épciAcr; ‘id meis rationibus imputa,’ 
Grot. Though there is no certain lexi- 
cal authority for €AAoydw (it does not 
appear in the new ed. of Steph. Thesaur.), 
and though its existence has been some- 
what peremptorily denied (Fritz. Lom. 
v. 13, Vol. 1. p. 311), yet still as the de- 
siderative Aoydw (Lucian, Lexriph. § 15) is 
an acknowledged form, and as peculiari- 
ties of orthography or errors of transcrip- 
tion cannot be made satisfactorily to ac- 
count for the assumed permutation of e 
and a [Bastius ap. Greg. Cor. p. 706 
(ed. Schef.) cited by Fritz. is not in 
point, as here referring to cursive mss. ; 
see examples and plates referred to] we 
seem bound to follow the preponderant 
uncial authority, ACDIFG; 17. 31: so 
Lachm., Tisch., and also Meyer, Alf. 
19. €éy® Tataos éyp.| ‘IL Paul 
have written ;’ scarcely ‘I write,’ De W., 
Conyb., Green (Gr. p. 17), as this epis- 
tolary aorist in the N. Test. does not ap- 
pear used simply in reference to what 
follows, but always more or less _retro- 
spectivély, whether in reference to a for- 
mer letter (2 Cor. ii. 3), to preceding 
passages in an all but concluded letter 
(Rom. xv. 15, see Meyer in loc.), or to 
an immediately foregoing portion of one 
in progress (1 Cor. ix. 15): when the 
reference is to what is definitely present, 
the simple ypapw is used in preference to 
the idiomatic aorist; see Winer, Gram. 
§ 40. 5. 2, p. 249, and notes on Gal. vi. 
11. This would lead us to conclude 
that St. Paul wrote with his own hand 
certainly the preceding verse, and not 


improbably (Theod., Hieron.) the whole 
Epistle. It does not thus seem desira- 
ble with Lachm, and Buttm. to make this 
verse the commencement of a new para- 
graph. eyo arotica| 
‘I will repay, obviously not with any 
serious meaning, as if the apostle expect- 
ed that Philemon would demand it, but, 
as the Greek commentators all observe, 
xapievrws (Theoph.), yet, perhaps, as 
the next words convey, with a gracefully 
implied exhortation, nad émirpemtucas dua 
kal xaptévtws (Chrys.) ; comp. Theod., 
av7l ypaypariov thvde KdteXe Thy emioro- 
Ai: wacav abthy eyo yéypapa. The 
addition éy Kupi» [D1E1; Claromanus, 
Sang.] is an improbable repetition of éy 
Kupiw below. tva ph Aéyo 
got] ‘that I may not say to thee;’ a rhe- 
torical turn, — oxjjua Tapaciwricews, 
Grot., or mapadelews, Gent., ‘ rhetorica 
preteritio,’ Est.,—in which what might 
be said is partially suppressed, or only 
delicately brought to the remembrance 
of the person addressed. The va does 
not seem strictly dependent on @ypawa, on 
amoticw (Mey.), nor yet on a suppressed 
imper. ‘yield me this request’ (Alford), 
— which would impair the graceful flow 
of thought, but rather, as Chrys., The- 
oph., and Gicum. seem tg suggest, on a 
thought called up by the amoticw, —‘ re- 
pay ; yes I say this, not doubting thee, 
but not wishing to press on thee the claim 
I might justly urge:’ all was to be ov 
kare avdryeny GAAG Kata Exotc.oy, verse 
14. mpocopetrAers| ‘thou 
owest unto me besides :’ Philemon was not 
only an actual debtor to the apostle of 
any trifle that he thus (uer& xapitos Tis 
mveuyarixas, Chrysost.) offers to make 
good, but in addition to it (7poo-), even 
(*al ascensive) his own self, his own 
Christian existence. Raphel adduces 
somewhat similar uses of mpocopetAew in 


‘Xen. Cyr. 111. p. 59 (111. 2. 16), Gicon. 


230 


PHILEMON. 


20, 21. 


AP lol by > \ > / . (7 \ ré v4 \ t 
Th eh xetpl, eyo arroticw iva pn A€yw oot OTL Kal cEavToY pot 
> / 
mpocoeirers. 7 Nal, dderpé, &yo cou ovaiunv év Kupip: ava- 
p , ’ Pp 
mavodv mov Ta oTAayyva ev XpioTo. 


I am confident that thou 
wilt fully comply with my 


21 [leroiSas th tmaxoh cov é&yparpa 


ION 4 \ € \ A fe A 4 
request. Prepare me a goy, E€loWS OTL Kal UTEep O EYW ToLNoELS. 


lodging. 


p- 684 (20. 1); the meaning, however, 
is sufficiently obvious. A curious meta- 
phorical use of xpocop. (‘longe inferio- 
rem esse’) will be found in Polyb. Hist. 
XXXIX. 2. 6. 

20. vat, &deA PE] ‘yea, brother ;’ 
certainly not ‘precantis’ (Grot.), nor 
‘vehementer obsecrantis’ (Gent.), but 
with the usual force of the particle in the 
N. Test., ‘serio affirmantis’ (compare 
Erasm.), in reference to the request em- 
bodied in ver. 12 sq. ; apels Toy xaprer- 
Tiopov mddAw exeTa TOY wpoTépwy TOV 
orovdatwy, Chrys., compare Theoph. and 
Gcum. On the use of va) in the N. T., 
see notes on Phil. iv. 3. 
éyd cov dvatunv] ‘may I reap 
profit from thee ;’ —J, not without em- 
phasis; the apostle again (comp. ver. 12, 
17) makes if a matter between himself 
and Philemon, putting for the time One- 
simus almost out of sight; it was a favor 
to himself. The somewhat unusual évat- 
pny [2 aor. opt., see Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, 
p- 189 Transl.], coupled with the signifi- 
cant éyé (J, not merely Ones.), seems to 
confirm the view of most modern com- 
mentt., except De W., that there is again 
a play on the name of Onesimus ; see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 68.2, p. 561. The form évat- 
env is similarly used by Ignatius (Poly. 
1. 6, Magn. 12, al.),— once (Ephes. 2) 
curiously enough, but apparently by 
mere accident, after a mention of an 
Onesimus. évy Kupl@ 
denotes, as usual, the sphere of the dynos, 
(see on Ephes. iv. 17, Phil. ii. 19, al.), 
just as €v XpiorG, which follows, speci- 
fies that of the dydmavois ; both were to 
be characterized by being in Him, they 
were to be such as implied His hallowing 


influences. It may be here observed 
that év Xp. has distinctly preponderating 
authority [ACD,FGL; al.; Claroman., 
Syr. (both), 2&th. (both), Copt., Goth.], 
and is adopted by nearly all modern eds. 
Ta oTAGYXVAal ‘my heart ;’ not One- 
simus, as in y. 12 (Hieron.), which would 
here be wholly out of place, nor thy 
mept oc aydanv (Theoph., Gicum.), but 
simply the orAdyxva of the apostle, — 
the seat of his love and affections ; see 
notes on ver. 7. 

21. remotdas tH Srax.] Conclud- 
ing allusion to his apostolic authority, 
but how delicately introduced, how ten- 
derly deferred, and how encouragingly 
echoing the commendations with which 
he commenced ; dézrep ka) dpxduevos etme, 
mappnolay éxwy TodTo Kal évTaida Aéyer 
eis TO emiopparyloa Thy emiaroAhv, Chrys. 
Zypawa] ‘I have written,’ not ‘I write,’ 
De W.; see above on ver. 19, and con- 
trast the following present. 
brép & A€ya| ‘beyond what I am say- 
ing;’ compare Eph. iii. 20. It is very 
doubtful whether this alludes, however 
faintly, to the manumission of Onesimus 
(Alf.). The tenor of the Epistle would 
seem to imply nothing more than en- 
couraging confidence on the part of the 
apostle (Gua Kal Sifyeipev eitay TovTo, 
Chrys.), that Philemon would show to 
the fugitive even greater kindness and a 
more affectionate reception than he had 
pleaded for; compare notes on ver. 14 
and 16. Lachm. here reads émép & with 
AC; 3 mss.; Coptic, Syr. (Philox.), — 
not without some reason, as the single 
request might have suggested the cor- 
rection (compare Alford); still it is 
perhaps more safe to retain the text 


22-25, 


PHILEMON. 


2 Ga Oé Kat érolwaté pos Eeviav' Ehrrifw yap Oru Sia THY Tpocev- 


YOv tpav xaptoSjncopar viv. 


Salutations. 


év Xpict@ Inood, * Madpkos, ’Apictapyos, Anuas, Aovxdas, of 


oUVEPYOL [0Vv. 
Benediction.~ 


TOD TVEUMATOS UMOV. 


as best supported by external authority. 
22. &ma 5& weal «.7.A.] ‘ Moreover 
at the same time also provide me a lodg- 
ing ;” a commission appended to his re- 
quest: in addition to complying with the 
subject of the letter, Philemon was also 
to make this provision for the expected 
apostle. Chrys. and Theod. (compare 
Alf.) find in this message a last thought 
of Onesimus, and a direction tending to 
secure him a kind reception ; fva mpoo- 
doxdy adtod Thy mapovolay aidecdH [PiA.] 
kal 7a ypduuara, Theod. It may be 
doubted, however, whether the jirst view 
of Theoph. and Cicumen. is not more 
probable, and more worthy both of Phi- 
lemon and of the apostle, — viz., that 
Philemon was not to consider the Epis- 
tle a mere petition for Onesimus (ei 
dia "Ovomoy ovde Adyou pe Héiov, The- 
oph.), but as containing special messages 
on other matters to himself. The word 
tevla (Hesych. trodoxn, kardAvua) only 
occurs here and, also in reference to St. 
Paul, Acts xxviii. 23. 
51a TAY TpOTEVXaY KuGr| through 
your prayers ;’ in reference to Philemon, 
Apphia, Archippus, and those mentioned 
in ver. 2. The same expectation of 
recovering his liberty appears in Phil. i. 
25, ii. 24; there, however, the journey 
contemplated is to the Philippians, and 
the date when it is formed, according to 
the general view, a year or two later; 
comp. Wieseler, Chronol. p. 456. 


3 Aomatetal ce’ ’Etrappas 6 cuvarypddoros pou 


“HT yapis tov Kupiov nav Incod Xpictod pera 


23. domdCeras] Greetings from the 
same persons as those mentioned in the 
Ep. to the Coloss. (ch. iv. 10 sq.), with 
the exception of Justus. The order ob- 
served is substantially the same, Mark 
and Aristarchus (of dvtes é« tepitopijs, 
Coloss. iv. 11) preceding Luke and De- 
mas, except that Epaphras is here placed 
first. The reading domd(ovra [ Rec. with 
D°*D°KL] is rightly rejected by most 
modern editors as a grammatical correc- 
tion. 6 guvatxmaa. pov| 
‘my fellow-prisoner ;? more specifically 
defined as év XpiotgG “Inco ; see on Eph. 
iv. 1. The title here given to Epaphras 
is, in Col. iv. 10, given to ’Aplorapxos, 
while the latter is afterwards named as 
a ouvepyés: for the probable reasons, 
see notes on Col. 1. c. 

24. Mdépxos] Probably John Mark, 
and the Evangelist. For a brief notice 
of him, and those mentioned in this 
verse, see notes on Col. iv. 10 and 14. 

25. 7 xdpis x.7.A.] Precisely the 
same form of salutation as in Gal. vi. 18, 
with the exception of the significant con- 
clusion ad<«Agot. As there, so here (com- 
pare also 2 Timothy iv. 22), the apostle 
prays that the grace of the Lord may be 
peta TOD mvedmatos, ‘with the spirit’ of 
those whom he is addressing, with the 
third and highest portion of our compos- 
ite nature ; see notes on Gal. 1. c., Desti- 
ny of Creature, p. 113 sq., and compare 
Olshaus, Opusc. vi. p. 145 sq. 


231. 


« ja 


a sora! ‘ee ; 


pF 


’ 


y tage ; 
} iif a Be A LCN 
ae! eh ee ae ine som 
' Rote 3 NOY out i 








PD Sa Te. 


TuE following translation is based on the same principles as those adopted 
in the portions of this Commentary that have already appeared. The in- 
creased and increasing interest in the subject of revision has, however, induced 
me to be a little fuller in the citations from the eight Versions, which are here 
compared with the Authorized, and has also suggested the insertion of a few 
comments on general principles of translation, and of a few brief reasons for 
changes, which the notes on the original might not fully supply. My humble 
endeavor has been to avoid everything that might seem arbitrary and capri- 
cious, and to cling with all possible tenacity to fixed principles of correction ; 
still there both are and must be many passages in which the context and 
general tone of the original render one of two apparently synonymous trans- 
lations not only more appropriate, but even more faithful and correct, than 
the other. In the present edition a few alterations have been made, but not 
any of sufficient importance to require here to be separately specified. 

Of the older English Vv., the attention of the student may be especially 
directed to the version of Coverdale, which, considering the time and circum- 
stances under which it was executed, appears remarkably vigorous and faith- 
ful. This venerable Version has now become accessible by the reprint of 
Coverdale’s Bible, published by Messrs. Bagster ; but a small and cheap edi- 
tion of the New Testament alone, with perhaps the Version in the *‘ Duglott’ 
edition [Cov. (Test.)], would, I am confident, be very acceptable to many 
students who may be deterred by the size and price of the reprint above 
alluded to. Some interesting remarks on these Versions, and on the subject 
of Revision generally, will be found in a tract by ‘ Philalethes, entitled The 
English Bible, 8vo. Dublin, 1857. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


CHAPTER I. 


AUL and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints 
in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and 
deacons: 7 grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father 


and the Lord Jesus Christ. 


8 IT thank my God upon all my remembrance of you, 4 always, 
in every supplication of mine for you all, making my supplication 
with joy, ® for your fellowship shown toward the Gospel from the 
first day until now ; © being confident of this very thing, that He 


Cuarrer I. 1. Servants] So Wiel.: 
‘the servants,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
On the designation Timothy (‘ Timo- 
theus,’ Auth.), see notes on Coloss. i. 1 
(Transl.). Christ Jesus (18*)] 
‘*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 

2. And the Lord] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘and 
Jrom the Lord,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicel., ‘of.’ It is perhaps more 
exact to omit the preposition in the sec- 
ond member, as in the Greek: here it is 
unimportant, but in some cases the sense 
and construction are impaired by the 
repetition ; comp. Blunt, Lect. on Par. 
Priest, pp. 55, 56. 

3. All my remembrance] ‘ Every re- 
membrance,’ Auth. ‘ 

4. Supplication] ‘Prayer,’ Auth. and 
all Vy.: it is perhaps better to retain 


the more special meaning, as evincing 
the earnest nature of the apostle’s prayer ; 
comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1, and notice 
below, Wicl., Cov. (Test.), in the trans- 
lation of the second dénors. It is curious 
that all the Vv. except Auth: change to 
the plural, ‘all my prayers ;’ this cer- 
tainly preserves the raphxnots (compare 
on Eph. vy. 20), but at the expense of ac- 
curacy. My supplication] ‘ Request,’ 
Auth. ; ‘bisechynge,’ Wicl.; ‘ instaunte 
prayer,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘praier,’ Bish. ; 
‘petition, Rhem.; the remaining Vv. 
adopt the simple verb ‘and praye’ 
( Tynd., Cov., Cran.), or ‘ praying, ( Gen.). 

5. Shown toward] ‘In,’ Auth. and all 
Vv. except Cran., ‘ of.’ 

6. Began] ‘Hath begun,’ Auth. In 
you a good work] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 


PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. I. 6-11. 


286 
which began in you a good work, will perfect ¢ up to the day of 
Christ Jesus: ‘ even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, 
because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, 
and in my defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are par- 
takers with me of my grace. ® For God is my witness, how I do’ 
long after you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus. °% And this I pray, 
that your love may yet more and more abound in knowledge and 
in all discernment, 1 to the intent that ye may prove things that 
are excellent, that ye may be pure and without offence against the 
day of Christ ; 4 being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which 


is by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. 


Rhem.: ‘agood work (‘that g. w.,’ Cov., 
‘the,’ Coverd. Test.) in you,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. Perfect| So 
Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘ fulende :’ 
‘perform,’ Auth., Wicl., Cranm., Bish. ; 
‘go forthe witb it,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. 
Up to] Sim. Rhem. ‘unto:’ ‘ until,’ 
Auth. and remaining Vy. except Wicl., 
‘ til in to.’ Christ Jesus] 
**Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 

7. My defence] So Cov. (Test.), Gen.: 
‘the,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., Rhem.; ‘in 
defendynge,’ Wicl., Cov. ; ‘as I defende,’ 
Lynd. Partakers with me] 
So Cov. and sim. Tynd., Cranm., ‘ com- 
panions of grace with me ;’ ‘ partakers 
of my grace,’ Auti., Genev , Bish., and 
sim. Wicl., ‘felowis of my joie ;’ ‘ par- 
takers of my joye,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

8. Witness] So Wicl., Rhem.: § re- 

cord,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Tynd., Gen., ‘ beareth me recorde.’ 
Do long| So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Cov. ; 
‘greatly long,’ Auth. and other Vv. ex- 
cept Wicl., Rhem., ‘ coueite;’ Bish, 
‘hartely I long.’ The insertion of the 
auxiliary seems to throw a slight empha- 
sis on the action expressed by the verb, 
which is not inappropriate after the sol- 
emn adjuration. Christ Jesus] 
‘%*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 

9. Yet more and more abound] Sim. 
Rhem., ‘ may more and more abound :’: 


‘abound yet more and more,’ Auth., Bish., 
and, with similar position of the adverbs, 
the other Vv. The inversion seems a 
little more closely to preserve the Greek 
order and the connection of repiccevew 
with the particulars in which the increase 
takes place. All discernment] 
More literally ‘all manner of,’ etc., a 
translation actually adopted by Coverd., 
but marred by the untenable attraction, 
‘in all manner of knowledge and in all 
experience.’ Discernment] 
‘Judgment,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘ wit,’ Wiel. ; 
‘fealinge,’ Tynd.; ‘experience,’ Cov. ; 
‘understandyng,’ Cov. (Test.), Cranm., 
Bish., Rhem. ' 

10. To the intent that] ‘ That,’ Auth. 
and all other Vv. It seems desirable to 
make some difference in translation be- 
tween the more immediate eis Td x. T. A. 
and the further and final {va fire k. T. A. 
Prove] So Wicl., Cov. : ‘approve,’ Auth., 
Rhem.; ‘accepte,’ Tyndale, Cranmer ; 
‘alowe,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘diserne,’ Gen., 
Bish. Pure] So Tynd. and 
all Vv. except Auth., Rhem., ‘sincere ;” 
Wicl., ‘clene.’ Against} So’ 
Coverd. (Test.): ‘ till,’ Auth., Bish., and 
sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen., ‘untyll;’ * in,’ 
Wicl.; ‘unto,’ Cov., Rhem. 

11. Fruit] ‘*Fruits, Auth. 
Is] ‘are,’ Auth. 

12. Now] ‘ But,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 


Cuap. I. 12-17. PHILIPPIANS. 937 

22 Now I would have you know, brethren, that matters with me 
have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; ¥ so 
that my bonds have become manifest in Christ in the whole preeto- 
rium, and to all the rest ; and that the greater part of the brethren 
having in the Lord confidence in my bonds, are more abundantly 
bold to speak the word without fear. 1 Some indeed preach Christ 
even from envy and strife ; and some too from good will: 1 they 
that are of love so preach, because they know that I am set for the 


defence of the gospel; ™ but they that are of contentiousness pro- 


Bish. ; ‘for,’ Wicl.; ‘and,’ Rhem.; the 
rest omit. Have you know] 
So Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘have 
you to wite :’ ‘ wole that ye wite,’ Wicl. ; 
‘ye should understand,’ Auth., Cranm., 
Bish., and sim. Tynd., Coverd., Genev., 
‘wolde ye understode.’ Matters 
with me] Somewhat similarly, Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), ‘the thingis that ben aboute 
me:’ ‘the things about me,’ Rhem.; 
‘the things which happened unto me,’ 
Author., Cranmer, Genev. (‘have hap.’) 
Bish. (‘came’); ‘my busynes,’ Zynd., 
Cov. 

13. Have become] Sim. Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘weren made:’ ‘are,’ 
Auth. and remaining Vv. 

The perfect is adopted as perhaps better 
continuing the tense of the preceding 
member. Manifest in Christ] 
‘Bonds in Christ,’ Auth. The 
whole Preetorium] ‘ All the palace,’ Auth. ; 
‘eche moot halle,’ Wicl.; ‘all the judg- 
ment hall,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., 
Bish, ; ‘ every judgment house,’ Coverd. 
(Test.) ; ‘althe court,’ Rhem. 

To all the rest] Sim. Rhem., ‘in all the 
rest :’ Auth. (Marg.), ‘to all others ;’ 
‘in all other places,’ Auth. and remain- 
ing Vv. 

14. That the greater part] ‘ Many,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
‘mo.’ All however except Auth. prefix 
‘ that.’ Having in the Lord, 
etc.] ‘ Brethren in the Lord, waxing con- 
fident by my bonds,’ Auth., and, with 


some variations, the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), which connect év 
Kupiw with remoiddras. 

15. From] ‘ Of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘for,’ Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), [hem. Too] ‘ Also,’ 
Auth., Gen., Rhem.; the rest omit. 
From] ‘Of, Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘for.’ 

16. They that are, etc.| ‘ But the other 
of love,’ Auth., but with a transposition 
of ver. 15 and 16. Because they 
know] So Cran., and sim. Tynd., Cov., 
‘because they se:’ ‘knowing,’ Auth., 
Cov. (Test-), Gen., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ wit- 
ynge,’ Wiel. 

17. But they that are, etc.] ‘The one 
preach Christ of contention, not sincere- 
ly, supposing to add affliction to my 
bonds,’ Auth., but with a transposition of 
ver. 15 and16. There is some little dif- 
ficulty in finding a suitable translation 
for épiSeta. On the one hand, the older 
translation, ‘ strife,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish., is certainly open to 
the objection of confounding gps and 
épiSela, from which that of Auth., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem., viz., ‘contention,’ is 
scarcely free: on the other hand, the 
more lexically exact, ‘a spirit of in- 
trigue,’ here certainly presents an inade- 
quate antithesis to d@ydirn. In this diffi- 
culty perhaps the term chosen in the 
text sufficiently maintains the antithesis, 
while in its etymological formation it 
approaches lexical accuracy by keeping 


PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. I. 17-93. 


238 


claim Christ, not sincerely, thinking thus to raise up affliction unto 
my bonds. %® What then! notwithstanding, in every way, whether 
in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and therein I do re- 
joice ; yea, and I shall rejoice ; 1° for I know that this shall issue 
to me unto salvation, through your supplication and the supply of 
the Spirit of Jesus Christ, *° according to my steadfast expectation 
and hope, that in nothing I shall be put to shame, but that with all 
boldness, as always, so now also, Christ shall be magnified in my 
body, whether zt be by life, or by death. 1 Yor To ME to live is 
Christ, and to die 7s gam. ™ But if to live im the flesh, —7f THIS 
is to me the fruit of my labor, then what I should choose I wot not. 
23 Yea I am held in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to 


in view the spirit, the spirit of faction 
and dissension, that actuated the oppo- 
nents. Proclaim] ‘ Preach,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), ‘ schewen.’ 

Thinking| ‘ Supposing,’ Auth. 

To raise up| ‘*To add,’ Auth. 

18. In every way] ‘ Every way,’ Auth. ; 
‘on alle maner,’ Wicl.; ‘all maner 
wayes,’ Tynd., Cov. (‘of wayes’), Gen. ; 
“by every meane,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘anye 
maner of waye,’ Cran., Bish.; ‘by al 
meanes,’ Rhem. Proclaimed] 
‘ Preached,’ Auth. and other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘ schewid.’ Therein I 
‘T therein,’ Auth.: changed to avoid any 
false emphasis on the pronoun. 

Shall] So Wicl. and Coverd. (Test.): 
‘will,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

19. Issue to me unto salv.| Sim. Rhem., 
‘ shall fall out to me unto saly.:’ ‘turn 
to my saly.,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘come 
to me in to helthe,’ Weel. ; ‘ shall befal 
unto me to saluacion,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; 
‘shall chaunce to my salv.,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran. Supplication] ‘ Prayer,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

20. Steadfast expectation] ‘Earnest ex- 
pectation,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ expectacion,’ 
Cranm., Rhem. ; ‘abidynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘as 
I hertely loke for,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; 
‘ waytynge for,’ Cov. (Test.). 


Hope] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cranm., 
them. : ‘my hope,’ Auth.; ‘and hope’ 
(verb), Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. 
Put to shame] ‘ Ashamed,’ Auth. and all 
Vv. except Rhem., ‘ confounded:’ it 
seems desirable to preserve and express 
the passive aicxuvShoopa. 

22. But if to live, etc.| ‘ But if I live 
in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor,’ 
Auth., and somewhat similarly as to con- 
struction, Tynd., Cran.: the other Vv. 
are perplexed, except Cov., ‘but in as 
moch as to live in the flesh is fruteful to 
me for the worke,’ and better Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘yf to live here in the flesh is 
frute of my labour, what,’ etce., in which 
though the rodro is overlooked, that di- 
vision between protasis and apodosis is 
the preserved which seems, on the whole, 
most probable: so in this respect simi- 
larly Wicl., Rhem. Then what} 
‘Yet what,’ Auth.; ‘lo what,’ Wiel. ; 
‘and what,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘I wote not what,’ Cov.; ‘what,’ Cov. 
(Test.). Should] ‘ Shall,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Tynd., 
Gen., ‘to chose,’—an idiomatic transla- 
tion, but tending to obscure the delibera- 
tive future. Wot not] So 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish. : 
scarcely exact, yet forcible and firm in 
cadence. The translation of Cov. (Test.), 


Cuap. I. 23-27. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


239 


depart, and to be with Christ, for it is very far better: % yet to 


abide in the flesh is more needful for your sakes. 


25 And being 


persuaded of this, I know that I shall abide and shall continue here 
with you all for your furtherance in and joy of Faith, *° in order 
that your ground of boasting may abound in Christ Jesus in me 
through my presence with you again. 

27 Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of Christ ; 


‘IT cannot tel,’ is idiomatic, and preferable 
to ‘knowe not,’ Wicl., Rhem. 

23. Yea] ‘*¥For,’ Auth. Tam 
held in a strait] ‘I am in a strait,’ Auth., 
Bish. ; ‘Tam constreyned,’ Wicl., Tynd., 
Cran.; ‘both these thinges lye harde 
upon me,’ Cov. ; ‘I am in distresse with 
two things,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘Iam greatly 
in doubte,’ Genev. ‘I am straitened,’ 
Rhem. The two| ‘ Two,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Cov. and Rhem., 
which (the former somewhat too strong- 
ly) express the article. The 
desire] ‘A desire,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Bish. ; ‘desire,’ Rhem.; ‘I haue desire, 
Wicl. ; ‘I desyre,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm. ; 
‘desiring,’ Gen. For it is, etc.] 
‘Which is far better,’ Author.; ‘it is 
myche more better,’ Wiclif; ‘ which 
thinge is best of all, Tynd., Genew. ; 
‘which thinge were moch more better,’ 
Cov. ; ‘the whyche is much more better,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘and to be with Christ is 
moch better,’ Cran.; ‘ which is muche 
farre better,’ Bish. ; ‘a thing much more 
better,’ Rhem. 

24. Yet} ‘Nevertheless,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘but,’ Wicl. and the 
remaining Vy. For your 
sakes] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘for you,’ Auth. 
~ and the other Vv. 

25. Being persuaded of this] ‘ Having 
this confidence,’ Author.; ‘ trustynge,’ 
Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘am I sure 
of,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 
Shall continue here with] ‘ Continue with,’ 
Author., with a difference of reading, 
which, however, does not affect the 
translation. The Vy. are nearly all 


identical with Author., except Wicl., 
‘dwelle and perfightli dwelle,’ and Cov. 
(Test.), ‘continue with you all unto the 
end.’ Furtherance in| ‘ Your 
furtherance and joy,’ Author., Cranmer 
(‘youre faith’), Bish., Rhemish (‘ the 
faith’) ; ‘ youre profight and joie of faith,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘ the furth. and joye of youre f.,’ 
Tynd., Cov.; ‘to youre profite and re- 
joycynge of f.,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘the fur- 
therance and joy of your f.,’ Gen. 

26. In order that] ‘That,’ Auth. and 

all Vv. Ground of boasting] 
‘ Rejoicing,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
Bish. ; ‘thanke,’ Wicl.; ‘may moare 
abundantly rejoyce,’’ Tynd., Cov. (om. 
‘moare’), Genev.; ‘ your gratulation,’ 
Rhem. Abound] So Wicel., 
Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘be plen- 
teous:’ ‘be more abundant,’ Author., 
Cran. (‘the more’). For Tynd., Cov., 
Gen., Bish., see above. 
In me] So Wicl., Cranm. (but ‘thorowe 
J. C.’), Rhem.: ‘for me,’ Auth., Gen., 
Bish. ; ‘thorowe me,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘ by 
me,’ Cov. (Test.). Through 
my presence with you] ‘ By my coming to 
you,’ Auth. and most of the other Vv., 
—but perhaps less exact than in the 
text. 

27. Worthy of] So Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘worthili to’: 
“as it becometh,’ Author. and remaining 
Vv. Remain absent] ‘Be 
absent,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘ ethir absent ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ be- 
ynge absent.’ Are standing] 
Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘ ye stonden :’ ‘stand 
fast,’ Author., and sim. Coverd. (Test.), 


PHILIPPIANS. Cuapr. I, 27-II. 2. 


240 
that whether I come and see you, or remain absent, I may hear of 
your affairs, that ye are standing in one spirit, with one soul striving 
together for the faith of the gospel, 7° and not being terrified in 
anything by your adversaries ; the which is to them an evidence of 
perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God: * because 
unto you was granted, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in 
Him, but also in behalf of Him—+to suffer; *° having the same 
conflict as ye saw in me, and now hear of in me. 


CHAPTER II. 


If then there be any exhortation in Christ, if any comfort of love, 
if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and compassions, 2 make 


‘stande stedfaste ;’ ‘ contynue,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 
Soul] So Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Bish. : 
‘minde,’ Auth., Gen., Rhem., and-sim. 
Cov. (Test.), ‘one mynded;’ ‘wile,’ 
Wicl. 

28. Not being terrified] ‘In nothing 
terrified,’ Auth.; ‘in no thing be ye 
aferd,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘afraid ;’ ‘in 
nothynge fearinge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Bish.; ‘in nothing feare,’ Gen.; ‘in 
nothing be ye terrified,’ Rhem. 

The which} So Cov. (Test.): ‘ which,’ 
Auth. and all remaining Vv. 

Evidence] ‘Evident token,’ Author. ; 
‘cause,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Cranm., 
Rhem. ; ‘ token,’ Tynd., Coverd., Genev., 
Bish. This from| Sim. Rhem., 
‘this of :’ ‘that of, Auth. and remaining 
Vy. except Wicl., ‘ this thing is of.’ 

29, Because] ‘ For, Auth. and all Vv. 
Was granted] ‘It is given,’ Auth. and 
all Vv. In Him] So Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘on Him,’ Author. 
and remaining Vv. It seems very de- 
sirable, on account of the etymological 
affinity of cis (évs) and éy (Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 170), to translate morevewy eis, 
‘believe in’ (where a more literal trans- 
lation is not possible), and to reserve 
‘on’ for morevew emi: for the construc- 


tion of this verb in the N. T., see notes 
on 1 Tim. i. 16, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 
14, Vol. 1. p. 129, and Rev. Transl. of 
St. John, p. x. In behalf of 
Him, etc.| ‘ Suffer for His sake,’ Author. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘for Him.’ For the rea- 
sons for this change, see notes. 

30. As ye saw] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
(‘have seen’), and sim. Cran., ‘soch a 
fyght as ye saw :’ ‘which yesaw,’ Auth. 
and remaining Vv. (Cov., ‘have sene’). 
Hear of | ‘ Hear to be,’ Author., Genev. 
(‘have heard’); ‘han herde of me,’ 
Wicl., Rhem.; ‘hear of me,’ Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Cran. ; ‘heare in me,’ Bish. 


Cuapter II. 1. Jf then there be] ‘If 
there be therefore,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ therfor if ony com- 
fort is,’ Wicl.; ‘if therefore there be,’ 
Rhem. ; Tynd. and Cov. omit ody. 
Exhortation| ‘Consolation,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov., ‘com- 
fort.’ Compassions] ‘ Mercies,’ Auth. 
and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., 
‘mercy ;’ ‘inwardnesse of merci doynge,” 
Wicl. ; ‘entier mocion of pytie,’ Coverd. 
(Test.) ; ‘bowels of commiseration,, 
Rhem. 

2. Make ye full] ‘ Fulfil ye,’ Auth. 


Cuar. II. 3-7. PHILIPPIANS. 241 


ye full my joy, that ye mind the same thing, having the same love, 
with united souls minding the one thing ; * minding nothing in the 
way of contentiousness, nor in the way of vain glory, but with due 
lowliness of mind esteeming other superior to themselves; * not 
looking each of you to your own things, but each of you to the 
things of others also. ° Verily have this mind within you, which 
was also in Christ Jesus: © who, though existing in the form of 
God, esteemed not His being on an equality with God a prize to 
be seized on, “ but emptied HimsELr, taking upon Him the form of 


Mind the same thing] Sim. Wicl., ‘un- 
derstonde the same thing:’ ‘be like 
minded,’ Auth., Cranm., Genev., Bish. ; 
«drawe one way,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘mynde 
one thing,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ be of one 
meaning,’ Ehem. With 
united souls, etc.| ‘Being of one accord, 
of one mind,’ Author., and sim. Tynd., 
Cov., Cranm. (‘and of’), Bish.; ‘of o 
wille and felen the same thing,’ Wicl. ; 
‘of one mynde meanynge one thynge,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘of one accorde and of 
one judgment,’ Cran.; ‘of one mind, 
agreeing in one,’ /them. 

3. Minding, etc.] ‘ Let nothing be done 
through,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., and 
sim. Tynd., Cov. (‘there be’), Cranm., 
Genev.; ‘that nothinge be done;’ ‘no 
thing bi,’ Wiel., Rhem. 

Contentiousness]} Sim. Rhem., ‘ conten- 
tion:’ ‘strife,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vy.; see notes on ch. i. 17 ( Transl.). 
Nor in the way of | ‘*Or,’ Auth. 

With due lowliness| ‘Tn lowliness,’ Auth. ; 
‘in meknesse,’ Wicl., Bish; ‘in meke- 
ness of mind,’ Tynd., Cranm., Genev. ; 
‘thorow mekeness,’ Cov.; ‘in humble- 
nesse,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘in humilitie,’ 
Rhem. As the article does not appear 
merely used to give tame. its more ab- 
stract force, but to mark the ‘ due, befit- 
ting ’ lowliness by which the Philippians 
were to be influenced, the insertion would 
seem justifiable. Esteeming] 
So Coverd. (Test.); ‘let each esteem,’ 
Auth., and sim. the remaining Vy. ex- 

81 


cept Wiel. (‘demynge’), hem. (‘ count. 
ing’), which retain the participial con- 
struction. Superior to] Sim. 
Cov. (Test.), ‘ the superiores of :’ ‘ bet- 
ter than,’ Author. and the other Vy. ex- 
cept Wicel., ‘higher than.’ 

4. Not looking, ete.| ‘*Look not *ev- 
ery man on,’ Author., and sim. in the 
imperative, Cranm., Genev., Bish. ; ‘not 
beholdynge,’ Wiel. ; ‘and that no man 
consider,’ Tynd.; ‘and let euery man 
loke not for his awne profet,’ Coverd. ; 
‘euery one consydering not,’ Coverdale 
(Test.), Rhem. But each of 
you, etc.| ‘But *every man also on,’ 
Auth., and sim. Gen., Bish., the only 
two Vy. that notice in translation the 
asceusive Kat. 

5. Verily] Auth. and all the Vv. omit 
the translation of ydp, except Wici., 
‘and ;” LRhem., ‘ for.’ Have 
this, etc.] ‘*Let this mind be in you,” 
Auth., sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; 
“let the same mind, etc.,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Bish. ; ‘that mind, ete. ;’ ‘fele ye this 
thing in you,’ Wiel.; ‘this think in 
yourselves,’ Rhem. 

6. Though existing] ‘Being,’ Author., 

Tynd., Gen., Bish. ; ‘whanne He was,’ 
Wicl. and remaining Vv. 
Esteemed not, etc.| ‘ Thought it not rob- 
bery to be equal with God,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov., Bish., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
Gen., Rhem., ‘no robbery, etc. ;’ ‘ demed 
not raueyn, that him silf were euene to 
God,’ Wiel. 


942, PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 7-13. 


a servant, being made in the likeness of men: ® and being found in 
fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even 
unto death, yea unto death on the cross. % Wherefore God did 
also highly exalt Him, and bestowed on Him a name which is 
above every name, 1° that in the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under 

” the earth ; ! and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
zs LorD, to the glory of God the Father. 

2 So then, my beloved, even as ye were always obedient, not as 
in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out 
your own salvation with fear and trembling. 7} For it is God which 
worketh in you, both to will and to perform, of His good pleasure. 


7. Emptied Himsetr] ‘ Made Him- 
self of no reputation,’ Author. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., ‘lowede Him- 
self ;? Rhem., ‘exinanited Him self.’ 
Taking| So Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
Bish., Rhem.: ‘and took,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vy. There is some little dif- 
ficulty in the translation of the modal 
(aor.) participle, when, as in the present 
case, the action of the participle is syn- 
chronous with that of the finite verb. 
On the whole, the pres. part. in English 
seems the best and most idiomatic equiv- 
alent, especially as in practice the tense 
of the finite verb seems so far reflected 
on the participle, that though really pres- 
ent in form, it becomes almost aoristic 
in sense. Being made] Sim. Lish., 
‘and made :’ ‘was made,’ Auth., Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Gen. ; ‘became lyke,’ Tynd., 
Coverd., Cranm.; ‘ made into,’ Rhem. 

8. Becoming] ‘And became,’ Author. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘and 
was made;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘was made ;’ 
Bish., Rhem., ‘ made.’ 

Even unto| ‘unto,’ Auth. Yea 
unto death| Sim. Wiel., ‘ ye to the death :’ 
‘even the death,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Cov., which inserts ‘unto,’ as in 
text. On the cross| ‘ Of the 
cross,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.: the 
slight change seems to add somewhat to 


perspicuity, and is compatible with the 
present use of the gen., which is one of 
‘more remote relation.’ 

9. Did also, etc.] So Coverd. (Test.), 
‘God also hath,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘God enhauncid,’ Wiel.; ‘God 
hath exalted,’ Tynd.; ‘hath God, ete.,’ 
Cov. ; ‘God hath. highly exalted,’ Gen. 
The change in the text seems to have 
the advantage of placing the contrasting 
kal in more distinct connection with d7e- 
puywoer. Bestowed on| Sim. 
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘ gave:’ ‘given,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vy. except 
Rihem., ‘ hath given.’ 

10. In the name] So Wicl., Tynd., 
Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘at the 
name,’ Auth., Gen. On earth] 
Sim. Coverd., ‘upon erth:’ ‘in earth,’ 
Auth. and remaining Vv. except Wiel., 
‘erthely thingis ;’ Rhem., ‘ terrestrials.’ 

12. So then] ‘ Wherefore,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘ therefore.’ Even as| 
‘as,’ Auth. Were always ob.| 
‘Have always obeyed,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., ‘evermore ye 
han obeischid.’ 

13. To perform] So Wicl., Coverdale 
(Test.), and sim. Rhem., ‘accomplish :’ 
‘to do,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ the dede,’ Tynd., 
Cqv., Cran., Gen. 


Cnar. II. 14-18. PHILIPPIANS. 243 


14 Po all things without murmurings and doubtings ; © that ye may 
be blameless and pure, children of God without reproach, amidst a 
crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye appear as heavy- 
enly lights in the world, 1 holding forth the word of life; that I 
may have whereof to boast against the day of Christ, that I did 
not run in vain nor yet labored in vain. 1 Howbeit if I be even 
poured out in the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and re- 


joice with you all. 
rejoice with me. 


14. Doubtings| So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
and sim. Ehem., ‘ staggerings:’ ‘ dis- 
putings,’ Azth. and, in the sing., Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘reasonings,’ Gen. 

15. Pure] So Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. : 
‘harmless,’ Author. (Marg. ‘ sincere’) ; 
‘simple,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test ), Fhem. ; 
‘unfayned,’ Cran. Children 
of | So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘the sons 
of, Author. and remaining Vv. except 
Cran., ‘unfayned sonnes of.’ 

Without reproach] ‘ Without rebuke,’ 
Auth. Amidst] ‘*In the 
midst,’ Auth. Generation | 
So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘nation,’ Auth. 
and remaining Vy. Appear] 
* Shine,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 

Heavenly lights) ‘Lights,’ Auth. and all 
the Vv. except Wicl., ‘geuers of light.’ 

16. Have whereof, etc.| ‘ Rejoice,’ 
Author., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘to my glorie,’ 
Wicl., Rthem.; ‘unto my rejoysynge,’ 
Tynd., Cov. (both.), Bish. (‘to’). 
Against] ‘In,’ Auth. and all Vy. 

Did not run} ‘ Have not run,’ Auth. and 
all the Vv. | The change to the aoristic 
form seems in this case clearly proper 


and necessary : the form with the auxil-’ 


iary is here chosen for the sake of pre- 
serving the rhythm of the Auth. Ver., 
which can rarely be neglected without 
some loss to the general cadence of the 
verse. Modern translators have paid far 
too little attention to this not unimpor- 
tant element in a good version of the 
Scriptures. Nor yet] ‘ Neither,’ 


18 And for the same cause do ye also joy, and 


Author. and all the Vv. except Rhem., 
‘nor ;’? Cov. (Test.) omits. The change 
is here made in accordance with the rule 
generally followed in this revision — to 
adopt the weaker translation. (‘ nor,’ or 
‘neither’) of the disjunctive ovdé, where 
the meanings of the words it disjoins are 
more similar and accordant, the stronger 
and more emphatic (‘nor yet’), where 
they are less so; see notes on 1 Tim. i. 4 
( Lransl.). 

17. [Howbeit] ‘ Yeaand,’ Auth. and the 

other Vv. except Wicl., ‘but though ;’ 
Cov. (Test.) ‘butathough ;’ Rhem., ‘ but 
and if, —an archaic, but not otherwise un- 
satisfactory transl. Be even poured 
out] ‘ Be offered,’ Auth. and sim. Tynd. 
(adds ‘or slayn’), Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish., ‘be offered up;’ ‘am off. up,’ 
Cov. (Test.) ; ‘be immolated,’ Rhem. 
In the] ‘Upon the,’ Author. and all the 
Vv. (Wicl., ‘on the’); it seems, how- 
ever, desirable to mark in translation 
that ém) has here probably not a local 
but an ethical reference ; the more exact 
‘unto’ (see notes) would here be hardly 
intelligible. 

18. And for] ‘For, etc.,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘and the 
same thing have ye joie;’ Cov. (Test.), 
‘be ye glad also of the same ;’ Rhem., 
“and the self same thing do you also re- 
joice.’ The regimen of ai7d is some- 
what more exactly expressed by Coverd. 
(Test.) than by Auth. and the Text, but 
there seems scarcely sufficient reason to 


244 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 19-24, 


18 Yet I hope in the Lord Jesus shortl 7 to send to you Timothy, 
that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. 7° For 
I have no man likeminded, who will have a true care for your 
state. 2! For they all seek their own things, not the things of Christ 
Jesus. ™ But ye know the proof of him, that, as a child to a father, 


he served with me in furthermg the gospel. 


3 Him, then, I hope’ 


to send forthwith, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. 


introduce the change, especially as the 
sense would remain substantially the 
same, while the rhythm would certainly 
suffer. 

Do ye also} Sim. Rhem., ‘do you also :’ 
‘also do ye,’ Auth., Cran., Bish. ; ‘also, 
rejoice ye,’ Tynd.; ‘be ye glad also,’ 
Cov. (both); ‘also be ye glad,’ Gen.: 
Wicl. omits ‘ also.’ 

19. Yet I hope] ‘ But I trust,’ Author. 
(Marg., ‘ moreover’), Bish.; ‘and I 
hope,’ Wicl. Rhem.; ‘1 trust,’ Tynd., 
Cov. (both), Cran., Gen. Shortly 
to, etc.| ‘To send Timothy shortly unto 
you,’ Author. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘schal sende Tymothe soone to 
you;” Rhem., ‘to send Tim. unto you 
quickly.’ The change is made to en- 
deavor to show that duty is the transmis- 
sive dative, and not the same as zpds 
vas, ver. 25; see notes. 

20. Will have a true care] ‘ Will nat- 
urally care,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘is bisie for 
you with clene affection ;’ ‘ with so pure 
affeccion careth,’ Tynd., Coverd., Gen. ; 
‘be careful for you with sincere affec- 
cion,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘with so pure aff. 
will care,’ Cran. ; ‘ with sincere affection 
is careful,’ Rhem. 

21. They all] So Coverd. (Test.), and 
somewhat sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. : 
‘all,’ Author., Bish., Rhem.; ‘all men,’ 
Wiel. Own things] ‘ Own,’ 
Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
Rhem. ‘the things that ben her owne,’ 
and sim. Cov. (Test.). Of Christ 
Jesus} ‘Which are *Jesus Christ’s,’ 
Auth., Cran., Cov. (Test.), (‘that be’), 
Bish., Rhem. (‘that are’); ‘that ben of 


Crist Jhesus,’ Wicl. ; ‘ that which is Je- 
sus Christes,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen The 
change in the text seems to leave the 
translation equally uncircumscribed with 
the Greek: the possessive gen. in E’ng- 
lish seems more limited. 

22. The proof| So Auth. and all the 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘assaie;’ Lhemish, 
‘an experiment:’ the meaning really 
amounts to ‘proved character’ (see 
notes), but as so many of the Vy. retain 
the literal meaning of doxiu7, a change 
may be deemed unnecessary. 

Child to a father] Sim. Cov. (both), ‘a 
chylde unto the father:’ ‘a son with the 
father,’ Auth., Bish., and the other Vy. 
except Wicl., ‘a sone to the f.;” Rhem., 
“a sonne the father.’ Served] 
Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘dyd he serve,’ and 
sim. as to aoristic form, Tynd., Cranm., 
Gen.: ‘hath served,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘hath he ministred,’ Cov. 

In furthering the gospel] ‘In the gospel,’ 
Author. and the other Vv. except Tynd., 
‘bestowed his labor upon the gospel.’ 

23. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ Auth. and the 
other Vy. except Tynd., Coverd., which 
omit ody in translation. 4 
Forthwith| ‘ Presently,’ Auth. ; ‘imme- 
diately,’ Rhem.: the rest omit. The 
concluding words of the verse are due 
to the version of Tynd., and have been 
retained by succeeding Vy. except Bish., 
‘as soone as I knowe my estate ;’ hem., 
‘that concern me.’ The sense is ex- 
pressed with sufficient accuracy (see 
notes) to render it undesirable to alter a 
translation so thoroughly idiomatic. 


24. Myself also] So Coverd. (Test.), 


Cuar. IL. 24-28. PHILIPPIANS. 945 

4 But I trust in the Lord that I myself also shall come shortly. 

5 Yet I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, 
my brother, and companion in labor, and fellow-soldier, but your 
messenger and minister to my need, *° since he was longing after 
you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye heard that he 
had been sick. 2 For indeed he was sick like unto death: how- 


beit God had mercy on him ; and not on him only, hut on me also, 


that I should not have sorrow upon sorrow. 


Rhem. (omits ‘1’): ‘also myself,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. 

25. Unto you] So Coverd., and, after 
- ¢Epaphr.,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. : ‘to you,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) 
omits. It seems desirble to attempt to 
make a distinction between mpds tuas 
and the transmissive dative; see notes 
on ver. 19. Minister, etc.] 
Sim. Wiel., Bish., ‘the mynistre of my 
nede;’ Fhem., ‘ minister of my necessi- 
tie ;’ Zynd., Cov. [‘nede’], ‘my minis- 
ter at my nedes:’ ‘he that ministered to 
‘my wants,’ Auth.; ‘the servant of my 
nede,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘which also myn- 
ystereth unto me at nede,’ Cran.; ‘he 
that ministered unto me such things as 
I wanted,’ Gen. 

26. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the 

Vv. except Coverd., ‘for so moch as,’ an 
archaic, but not inexact translation ; 
Rhem., ‘because.’ 
He was longing] ‘ He longed,’ Auth. and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘he desired ;’ 
Rhem., ‘he had a desire.’ Ye 
heard] So Wicl.: ‘had keard,’ Author. 
and the remaining Vv. In the next 
member the English idiom seems clearly 
to require the pluperfect in translation ; 
in the former member it may apparently 
be dispensed with. 

27. Lnke unto] ‘ Nigh unto,’ Author., 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ sike to 
the deeth,’ Wiel.; ‘untyll death,’ Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘even to death,’ Rhem. 
Howbeit] ‘ But,’ Auth. and all Vy. 

That I should not] ‘ Lest I should have,’ 


281 have sent him 


Author, and the other Vv. except Wiel. 
“‘leest I hadde;’ Zynd., Cov., ‘I shuld 
have had.’ 

28. Have sent] ‘Sent,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vy. The change seems neces- 
sary, as émeua is in all probability the 
epistolary aorist’ (see notes on Philemon 
11), Epaphr. being apparently the bearer 
of this Epistle. It may be doubted 
whether the present ought not to he 
adopted, as in Coverd. (both) : English 
idiom, however, seems in favor of the 
perfect ; compare notes on Coloss. iv. 8 
( Transi.). Therefore] Se 
Auth. and all the Vv.; and apparently 
rightly, as this seems one of the-cases in 
which ody has a slightly inferential force, 
which is inadequately expressed by 
‘then; ” see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. 
Diligently| So Tynd., Bish., and sim. 
Cranm., Gen., ‘diligentliar ;’ compare 2 
Tim. i. 17; ‘ carefully,’ Auth. ; ‘haistli,’ 
Wicl., Coverd. ; ‘spedely,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. The translation of the text, 
though not wholly free from ainbiguity, 
perhaps shows a /ittle more clearly than 
Author., al., that the apostle showed 
omovdi) in sending Ep. 

I too] Sim, Cov., ‘Ialso:’ ‘I,’ Auth. 
and remaining Vv. ‘The inserted pro- 
noun (‘1 on my side’) perhaps suggests 
this slight addition. Rejoice 
again] So Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Rhem., 
and sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.): ‘again, 
ye may rejoice,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. Per- 
haps the insertion of the adverb between 
the auxiliary and the verb might seem 


» 246 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. II. 29-III. 1. 


therefore the more diligently, that, when ye see him ye may rejoice 
again, and that I too may be the less sorrowful. 29 Receive him 
‘then in the Lord with all joy, and hold such in honor; * because 
for the work of Christ he went nigh even unto death, having 
hazarded his life, to supply that which you lacked in your service 


to me. 


CHAPTER III. 


FINALLY, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same 
things to you, to me indeed ¢s not irksome, while for you ¢¢ 2s safe. 


more consonant with the order of the 
Greek, and perhaps also with our pres- 
ent modes of expression: as, however, 
it has a tendency to suggest an undue 
emphasis on ‘again,’ and is, perhaps, a 
modern collocation, we retain the order 
of the older version. This is one of 
many minor points that would need 


careful consideration in any formal re- 


vision of our present version. 

29. Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all 
Vy.: see notes zn loc. Joy| 
So Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘gladness,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vy. It certainly seems 
undesirable to depart from the usual and 
almost semi-theological meaning of xapd. 
In honor] So Coverd. (Test.), and sim. 
Wicl., Rhem.: ‘in reputation,’ Auth. ; 
“make moch of soche,’ Tynd., Coverd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. 

30. Went nigh, etc.| ‘ Was nigh unto 
death,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘he wente to 
deeth, Wicl.; ‘he went so farre, that 
he was nye unto deeth,’ Tynd., Cranm. ; 
came nye unto,’ Coverdale; ‘ went to 
even untyll death,’ Coverdale (Test.) ; 
“came to the point of death,’ hem. 
Having hazarded| ‘ Notregarding,’ Auth., 
Bish. ; ‘ geuynge his liif,’ Wiel. ; ‘and 
regarded not his lyfe,’ Tynd., Coverd., 
Cran., Gen.; ‘geuyng over his lyfe,’ 
Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ yelding his life,’ Rhem. 
The translation of the aor. part., when 


associated with the finite verb, requires 
very careful consideration. Besides the 
usual periphrastic translations by means 
of temporal or causal particles, we have 
three forms of translation,— (a) the 
present participle; (b) the past partici- 
ple, with the auxiliary ‘ having ;’ (c) the 
idiomatic conversion into the finite verb 
with ‘and.’ Of these, (a) is especially 
admissible when the part. defines more 
closely the manner of the action expressed 
by the finite verb, or the circumstances 
under which it took place (see notes on 
ch. ii. 7); (b) is often useful when it is 
necessary to mark the priority of the ac- 
tion of the part. to that of the finite verb ; 
(c) sometimes serves to mark their con- 
temporaneity. In the present case the 
choice seems to be between (6) and (e), 
as the mapaBoA. may be regarded as 
partly accompanying, and partly as hav- 
ing preceded, the #yyiwev. As, logically 
considered, the latter idea seems here 
distinctly more prominent, we adopt the 
second form of translation. 

That which, etc.| So somewhat similarly 
Tynd., Cov., Gen., ‘that service which 
was lacking on your part to me :” ‘ your 
lack of service to me,’ Auth., Bish. ; 
‘that that falid of you anentis my ser- 
vice,’ Wiel. —not an incorrect view of 
the gen. (see notes) ; ‘it that was want- 
ynge unto you toward my willynge ser- 


Crap. IIT. 2-5. 


PHILIPPIANS. 


247 


2 Look to the dogs, look to the evil-workers, look to the CoNCISION. 
3 For we are the CIRCUMCISION, which by the Spirit of God do serve 
Him, and make our boast in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence 
in the flesh; +*though myself possessed of confidence even in the 
flesh. If any other man deemeth that he can put confidence in the 
flesh, I more: ° circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, 


-vyce,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘that which was 
lackynge on youre part toward me,’ 
Cran. ; ‘that which on your part wanted 
toward my service,’ Rhem. 


CuaptTer III. 1. Jrksome] ‘ Griev- 
ous,’ Author. ; ‘it is not-slowe,’ Wicl. ; 
‘it greveth me not,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen., Bish.; ‘no gyefe,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘tedious,’ Rhem. While] 
‘But,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and,’ Wicl., 
Cov., Gen., Rhem.; ‘ for to you it is, ete.’ 
Tynd., Cran., Bish. Tt would at first 
sight seem desirable to suppress the pév 
in translation ; as, however, the opposi- 
tion wév—6e is sparingly used in the N. 


T., and only when a somewhat decided. 


contrast is intended, it is best to retain 
Auth. 

2. Look to (3 times)] Sim. Wicl., ‘se 
ye;’ Rhem., “see:’ ‘ beware of,’ Author. 
and the remaining Vy. 

The dogs| So Rhem.: ‘dogs,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. The presence of the 
article with the two following substan- 
tives seems to show that here the article 
is not merely generic, but distinctive and 
definitive ; ‘indicat eum de certis qui- 
busdam loqui, quos illi noverint,’ Erasm. 
in loc. The evil] So Rhem.: Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. omit the article. 

3. By the Spirit of, etc.| ‘ Worship 
*God in the spirit,’ Author. It seems 
permissible to add ‘ZZim’ to the absolute 
Aarpevoyres in accordance with Auth. in 
Luke ii. 837, Acts xxvi. 7. The transla- 
tion of Cov., ‘even we that serve, etc.,’ by 
which the appositional character of of 
Myvedu. x. T. A. is fully preserved, is not 
undeserving of notice: there seems, how- 


ever, scarcely sufficient reason for a 
change. Make our boast} 
Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘ glorien:’ ‘rejoice,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

Put] ‘Have,’ Auth. On account of the 
next clause it seems desirable here to 
avoid the use of ‘ have.’ 

4. Myself possessed of] ‘Though I 
might also have,’ Gish., Auth., and sim. 
Rhem. (‘albeit I also have’); ‘though 
IT have trist,’ Wicl.; ‘though I also have 
confidence,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘though I 
have wher of I myght rejoyce,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Gen. ; ‘though I myght also re- 
joyce,’ Cran. Tle change to ‘ possessed 
of,’ is an endeavor to mark the ‘ habens, 
non utens ’ implied here by €xwr, and to 
draw a distinction in translation between 
TeToisws and €xwy memolanouy. 

Even in the] ‘In the flesh,’ Auth. and all 
the Vv. except Wicl., ‘in flesh.’ 
Deemeth| ‘Thinketh,’ Author. and the 
other Vy. except Wiel. ‘is seyn to trist ;? 
Cov. (Test.), ‘semeth to have;’ Rhem., 
‘seeme to have.’ The slightly stronger 
“deemeth,’ appears best to coincide with 
the view of Soe? adopted in the notes. 
Can put conf.| ‘Hath whereof he might 
trust,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘is seyn to trust,’ Wiel. ; ‘whereof he 
might rejoyce,’ Cov. ; ‘ seemeth to have 
confidence,’ Coverdale (Test.), Rhemish 
(‘seeme’). The literal translation, ‘ that 
he hath confidence,’ is here slightly am- 
biguous, and appy. warrants our adopt- 
ing the slight periphrasis in the text. 

5. As regards] ‘ As touching,’ Auth. ; 
‘bi,’ Wicl.; ‘as concernynge,’ Zynd., 
Cov., Cran. ; ‘after,’ Cov. (Test.), Bish. 
‘by profession a Ph.,’ Gen, ; ‘according 


* 


248 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuap. III. 6-8. 


of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as regards 
the law, a Pharisee ; © as regards zeal, persecuting the church; as 
regards the righteousness which is in the law, having lived blame- 


less. 
sake I have counted loss. 


7 Howbeit what things were gain to me, these for Christ’s 
8 Nay more, and I do also count them 


all to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus 
my Lord; for whose sake I suffered the loss of all things, and do 


to,’ Rhem. It will be seen (from next 
verse) that Wicl. and Fhem. are the only 
two which preserve the same translation 
of xar& in the three clauses : this certain- 
ly seems desirable, as more clearly di- 
recting the reader’s attention to the three 
theological characteristics of the apostle, 
which are not improbably climactic in 
arrangement. 

6. As regards] ‘ Concerning,’ Author., 
Bish.; ‘as concernynge,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen.; ‘after,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ac- 
cording to,’ Rhem. As regards 
the, etc.| ‘ Touching,’ Author., Bish. ; 
‘bi,’ Wicl. ; ‘as touchynge,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cranm., Gen.; ‘according to, Coverd. 
(Test.), hem. Having lived 
blameless] Sim. Wicl., ‘lyuynge without 
playnte :’ Cov. (Test.), ‘I have walked 
wythout blame;’ &hem., ‘ conversing 
without blame ;’ ‘blameless,’ Auth. ; ‘I 
was unrebukeable,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen.; ‘I was blameless,’ Bish. The 
addition of Wicl. serves to mark, though 
not quite adequately, the yevduevos which 
Auth. leaves unnoticed. 

7. Howbeit} ‘But,’ Auth. and all the 
Vy. The adversative 4AA& seems here 
to require a stronger translation than 
the merely oppositive ‘ but.’ 

These] So Wicl.: ‘those,’ Auth., Cran., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘the same,’ T’ynd., Cov. 
(both), Gen. For Christ’s 
sake] So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cranm., 
Gen., Bish., but at the end of the sen- 
tence: ‘for Christ,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. 
—also at theend. The change of order 
perhaps keeps up the antithesis «ép5os 


and (nla with a little more emphasis. 


Have counted] So sim. Coverd. (Test.), 
‘have I counted ;’ Wicl., ‘I have 
demede ;’ Rhemish, ‘ have I esteemed ;” 
‘counted,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 
8. Nay more] ‘*Yea doubtless,’ Auth., 
Gen. ; ‘netheless,’ Wicl.; ‘ye,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘ neverthelesse,’ Cov. 
(Test); ‘yea but,’ Rhem. The most 
literal translation would perhaps be ‘ nay 
indeed as was said,’ but is obviously too 
heavy for,an idiomatic version ; comp. 
notes. Do also count them all] 
‘I count all things,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘I gesse alle thingis,’ Wiel. ; ‘I thinke 
all thynges,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., 
Bish.; ‘I esteeme al things,’ Rhem. 
The insertion of ‘them,’ and the change 
to ‘do also count,’ seem required to show 
that the real emphasis does not rest on 
mavrTa, but on Fyodua as contrasted with 
Hynuat, while méyta refers back to the 
preceding G@riva «x. 7. A.; comp. Meyer 
in loc. To be loss| So Cov. 
(Test.), and sim. Wiel., ‘to be peire- 
ment:’ ‘but loss, Author. and the re- 
maining Vy. For whose sake] 
So Coverd. (Test.), Bish.: ‘ for whom,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy.: change 
for the sake of accordance with the trans- 
lation of 51a roy Xp., ver. 7. 
Suffered] ‘ Have suffered,’ Auth., and 
similarly with the auxiliary ‘ have,’ all 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘I made alle thingis 
peirement.’ To be dung| So Bish-: 
‘but dung,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen, 
Bish.; ‘as drit,’? Wicl.; ‘as dounge,’ 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘but vyle,’ Cran. 


Cuap. III. 9-12. PHILIPPIANS. 949 


count them to be dung, that I may win Christ, ® and be found in 
Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but 
that which is through Faith in Christ, even the righteousness which 
cometh of God by Faith: 1 that I may know Him, and the power 
‘of His resurrection, and the fellowship in His sufferings, being fash- 
ioned to the likeness of His death, “ if by any means I may attain 


unto the resurrection from the dead. 
2 Not that I have already attained, or am already made perfect ; 
but I am pressing onward if that I may lay hold on that for which 


9. Faith in] Sim. Tynd., ‘the fayth 

which is in Christ :’ ‘the faith of,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vy. Even| 
So Cranm., and sim. Wicl., ‘that is :’ 
Tynd., Gen., ‘1 meane ;’ Cov., ‘name- 
ly ;’ Auth. and Bish. omit, and Coverd. 
(Test.) and Rhem. alter the construction. 
The insertion, thus sanctioned by six of 
the Vvy., seems to add slightly both to 
the perspicuity and emphasis. 
Cometh of | So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish. : ‘is of, Auth , Wicl., Rhem.; Cov. 
(Test.) alters the construction The 
concluding words, ‘ by faith,’ Auth. (‘in 
faith,’ Wicel., Coverdale (both), Rhem. ; 
‘thorowe faith,’ Tynd., Cranm., Genev., 
Bish.), are scarcely an exact translation 
of em 77 mioret (see notes), but are per- 
haps a sufficiently close approximation 
to it to be preferable to any periphrasis 
(‘ grounded on faith,’ ‘resting on faith),’ 
which an adhesion to the literal meaning 
of the prep: would render necessary. 

10. In His] ‘ Of His,’ Author. and the 
remaining Vv. Fashioned 
to, etc.| Somewhat sim. Wicl., ‘ made 
liik to;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘lyke fashioned 
with :’ ‘*made conformable unto,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except 2hem. 
The expression in the original (cupmop- 
ol€eoSa: Savdrw) though perfectly intel- 
‘ligible, is so far unusual as to require 
some slight periphrasis in English. The 
shorter translation, ‘ being conformed 
to,’ is perhaps open to objection as in- 
volving a.use of ‘conform,’ which, 


though sanctioned by, Hooker, is now of | 
rare occurrence. The transl. of Conyb., 
‘sharing the likeness of,’ is objectiona- 
ble as obliterating the passive. 

11. May] So Coverd. (both), Rhem.: 

‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘if......I come.’ 
From the dead| So Cov.: ‘*of the dead,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vy. except 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., which follow 
the reading in the text. These three Vy. 
all translate rqy (‘that is fro,’ Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.); ‘which is from,’ Rhem.) : 
the insertion of the article is certainly in- 
tended emphatically to specify, but appy. 
falls short of the very distinctive force 
conveyed by the parallel insertion of the 
relative in English. 

12. Not that] So Wiel., Cov. (both), 
Cran., Rhem.: ‘not as though,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Gen., Bish, T have] 
So Wicl., Coverd. (both), Cran., Rhem.: 
‘Thad,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. On 
the use of the auxiliary ‘have’ in the 
translation of the aor. with #57,'see notes 
on Eph. iii. 5 (Transl.); and on 1 Tim. i. 
20 (Zransl.). Or am already, etc.] 
Sim. Wicl., ‘or now am perfect ;’ Cov., 
Cran., ‘ or that I am all ready p.;’ Cov. 
(Test.), ‘or that I be now p.;’ Rhem., 
‘or now am p.;’ ‘either were already 
perfect,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. On 
the translation of the perfect, see notes 
on Col. i. 16 (Transl.). Am 
pressing| ‘Follow after,’ Auth., Bish. ; 
‘sue,’ Wicl.; ‘folowe,’ Tynd., Coverd., 


32 


PaAPLELP PLANS: Cuap. III. 13-17. 


250 
also I was laid hold on by Christ. 1 Brethren, I count not MYSELF 
to have gotten hold: but one thing J do, forgetting the things that 
are behind, and stretching forth after the things that are before, 
14 T press on toward the mark for the prize of the heavenly calling 


of God in Christ Jesus. 


15 Let us then, as many as be perfect, be 


of this mind: and if im any thing ye are differently minded, even 


this will God reveal unto you. 


16 Nevertheless, whereto we have 


attained, — in the same direction walk ye onward. 
1 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which 


Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘follow upon,’ Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘ pursue,’ Phem. 

Lay hold on — was laid hold on| ‘ Appre- 
hend—am apprehended of, Author. ; 
‘ comprehende — am comprehendide of,’ 
Wicl. and the remaining Vv. 

Christ] ‘*Christ Jesus,’ Auth. 

13. Gotten hold| So Cov. (Test-), and 
sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., ‘gotten it:’ 
‘apprehended,’ Auth. ; ‘ comprehendide,’ 
Wicl., Rhem.; ‘atteyned to the mark,’ 
Gen.; ‘attained,’ Bish. 

One thing) So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Gen., Rhem.: ‘this one thing,’ Author., 
Cran., Bish. The things| So 
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘those 
things,’ Author., Cranm., Bish.; ‘that 
which,’ Zynd., Cov., Gen. 

That are (twice)] So Wicl., Cov. (Test., 
once), Rhem.: ‘which,’ Auth, and the 
remaining Vv. If the distinction allud- 
ed to on Ephes. i. 23 be correct, ‘ that’ 
would seem here slightly more exact than 
‘which.’ Stretching forth 
after| Sim. Wicl., ‘strecche forth my 
silf to;’ Tynd., Cov., ‘stretche my silfe 
unto ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘stretchynge my- 
self to;’ Rhem., ‘stretching forth myself 
to:’ ‘reaching forth unto,’ Auth. ; ‘ en- 
deuore myself unto,’ Cran., Gen., Bish. 

14. Press on] ‘Press,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov. (both), Cranm., Bish.; ‘ pursue,’ 
Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘ follow hard,’ Gen., Bish. 
In this verse the simple English present 
is more suitable than the auxiliary with 
the part., as in ver. 12. There the ad- 


verb #5n and the past tenses €AaBoy and 
TeTeAclwuat suggested a contrast in point 
of time ; here the iterative force involved 
in the English present (Latham, Hngl. 
Lang. § 573) is more appropriate. 
Heavenly] ‘ High,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Rhem., ‘supernal.’ 

15. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ Auth. and all 
the Vv. Of this mind] ‘Thus 
minded,’ Auth., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., 
Tthem.; ‘feele we this thing, Wiel. ; 
‘thus wyse minded,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. Are differently] ‘ Be 
otherwise,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
cept Wicl., ‘ understonden in other man- 
er ony thing.’ This will 
God, etc.| ‘God shall reveal even this 
unto you,’ Auth. and, in the same order, 
with some slight variations of language, 
the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘this thing 
God schal schewe;’ Fhem., ‘ this also 
God hath reuealed,’—a singular mis- 
translation. 

16. Attained] ‘Already attained,’ 
Author.; ‘han commun,’ Wicel.; ‘ are 
come,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Rhem. ; ‘ at- 
tained unto,’ Bish. In the 
same direction, etc.| ‘*Let us walk by 
the same rule, let us mind the same 
thing,’ Auth. The verse is obscure from 
its brevity; the translation ‘to what 
point we have attained,—in the same 
direction, etc.,’ perhaps may slightly 
clear it up, but is inferior to Author. in 
giving too special a meaning to eis 6. 

17. Are walking] ‘ Walk,’ Auth. and 


PHILIPPIANS. 


Cuar. TII. 18-IV. 3. 951 


are walking so as ye have us for an ensample. 1 For many walk, 
of whom many times I used to tell you and now tell you even weep- 
ing, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 1 Whose 
end is perdition, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in 
their shame, who are minding earthly things. 2° For our cou. _- 
wealth is in heaven ; from whence we also tarry for a Saviour, the 
Lord Jesus Christ : 74 Who shall transform the body of our humili- 
ation so that it be fashioned like unto the body of His glory, accord- 
ing to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things 
unto Himself. 


CHARTER LV. 


Wauererore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy 


and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, dearly beloved. 


2T exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche, that they be of the 
same mind in the Lord. 3 Yea I entreat thee also, true yoke-fel- 


all the Vv. It seems desirable to make 
some slight distinction between the pres. 
participle in this verse and the present 
indic. in ver, 18. 

18. Many times I used, etc.] ‘ Have 
told you often,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘I have seide ofte to you;’ 
Rhem., ‘often I told you of.’ Change to 
preserve the true force of @Aeyoy, and the 
TapHXnots, TOAAG — TOAAAKLS. 

19. Perdition| ‘ Destruction,’ Author., 
Rhem. ; ‘deeth, Wicl., Coverd. (Test.) ; 
‘dampnacion,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 

' Bish. Compare on 1 Tim. vi. 9. 
Are minding| ‘ Minde,’ Author., Coverd. 
(Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘saueren, Wiel. ; 
‘are worldely mynded,’ Tynd., Cranm., 
Gen. ; ‘are earthly minded,’ Cov. 

20. Commonwealth} ‘ Conversation,’ 
Author, and all the Vv. except Wiel., 
‘lyuyng.’ We also tarry for, 
etc.]| ‘Also we look for the Saviour,’ 
Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘also we abiden the 
sauyour,’ Wicl. ; ‘ we loke for a saveour, 
even, etc.,’ Tynd., Coverd. (‘the sav. J. 
C.’) ; ‘we do wayte for the saueoure the 
Lord J. C.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ we loke for 


the s., even the Lord J. C.,’ Cran. ; ‘we 
expect the Saviour our Lord J. C.,’ 
Rhem. 

21. Transform] ‘ Change,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘re- 
fourme ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ restore.’ 

Body of our humiliation] Sim. Rhem., 
‘body of our humilitie;’ Wicl., ‘ bodi 
of oure mekenesse :’ ‘ vile body,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. So 
that it be] ‘*That it may be,’ Auth. 
Body of His glory| So Rhem., and sim. 
Wicl., ‘bodi of his clereness :’ ‘ glorious 
body,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. 
except Cov. (Test.), ‘ hys cleare body.’ 


Cuaprer IV. 1. Wherefore] So Cov. 
(both): ‘ therefore,’ Author. and the re- 
maining Vy. The more exact transla- 
tion, ‘so then,’ is here somewhat awk- 
ward on account of the following ‘so.’ 
Dearly bel. (2nd)| Auth. prefixes ‘ my,’ 
with Bish., Rhem. ; ‘most dere britheren,’ 
Wicl.; ‘ye beloved, Tynd., and the 
remaining Vv. 

. 2. Exhort] ‘ Beseech,’ Auth., Coverd., 
(Test.); ‘ preie,’ Wicl. and the remain- 


PHILIPPIANS. Caap. IV, 3-8. 


252 


low, give them aid, since they labored with me in the gospel, in 
company with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow-laborers 
whose names are in the book of life. 
* Rejoice in the Lord alway: again I will say, Rejoice. ® Let 
your forbearance be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. 
6 Be anxious about nothing; but in every thing by your prayer 
and your supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be 
made known before God. 7 And the peace of God, which passeth 
all understandings, shall keep your hearts and your thoughts in 


Christ Jesus. 


8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things 


ing Vv.’ except Ithem., ‘desire’ As 
mapakaA® is a word of very frequent oc- 
currence in St. Paul’s Epp. (compare 
notes on 1 Tim.i. 8), the translation must 
vary with the context: here perhaps the 
slightly stronger ‘exhort’ is more suita- 
ble than the (now) weaker ‘ beseech.’ 

8. Yea] ‘*And,’ Auth. (kat ép.) 

Give them aid, etc.| ‘Help those women 
which,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. 
(‘that’); ‘ the ilke wymmen that,’ Wiel. ; 
‘the wemen which,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. In company with] 
‘With,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
The rest of | Sim. Ithem., ‘ the rest my :’ 
‘with other,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran, 
Genev., Bish.; ‘and other,’ Wicl. ; ‘my 
other,’ Cov. (both). 

4. Again] So Rhem., Coverd. (Test.), 
Bish., and sim. Wicl., ‘efte:’ ‘and 
again,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

I will say| So Bish.: ‘I say,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. 

5. Forbearance] ‘ Moderation,’ Auth. ; 
‘pacience,’ Wiel.; ‘softeness,’? Tynd., 
Cov. (both), Cranm. ; ‘ patient mynde,’ 
Gen., Bish. ; ‘ modestie,’ Rhem. 

6. Anzious about] ‘ Careful for,’ Auth., 
Cranm., Bish. ; ‘no thing bisie,’ Wiel. ; 
“not carfull,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘ noth- 
yuge carefull,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
Your (twice)] Auth. and the other Vv. 
simply ‘ prayer and supplication ’ ( Wicl., 


‘bisechinge’). The Versions which er- 
roneously connect may7) with mpooevxh 
are Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), and, what is 
singular, Cranm., as this Version was 
not from the Vulgate, and was preceded 
by the correct translations of Tynd. and 
‘Cov. Before] So Coverd. : 
‘unto,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. 
except Wicl., ‘at;’ Rhemish, ‘ with.’ 
Though not perfectly exact, the above 
translation of mpbds is slightly preferable 
to ‘unto,’ as not seeming to imply to 
the English reader that a dat. is used in 
the original. 

7. All understandings] ‘ All under- 
standing,’ Auth. and. all the Vv. ( Wicel., 
‘witte’). As these words are so famil- 
iar to Christian ears, it seems desirable 
to introduce the slightest possible change 
consistent with accuracy. ‘This. seems 
to be the change to the plural, as it ap- 
proximately conveys the meaning of 
mdvta vooy (comp. notes on Col. ii. 15), 
and precludes the ordinary misconcep- 
tion that ‘understanding’ is a participle. 
Your thoughts] ‘Minds,’ Auth. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
‘undirstondingis ;’ Lhem., ‘ intelligen- 
ces.” In] So Wicel., Tynd., 
Coverd. (both), Genev., Bish., Rhemish : 
‘through,’ Auth., Cran., Bish. 

8. Seemly| ‘Honest,’ Author. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ chast.’ 


Crap. IV. 9-12. PHILIPPIANS. 953 
are seemly, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, 
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; 


if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these 


things. 


® The things, which ye also learned and received, and 


heard, and saw in me, the same do: and the God of peace shall be 


with you. 


10 Now I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye 
flourished again in respect of your care for me, wherein ye were 


also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. 


1 Not that I speak in 


consequence of want: for I have learned, in what state I am, therein 


to be content. 


9. The things| So Cov. (Test.), where 
also it is similarly resumed as in text by 
‘the same:’ ‘those things,’ Author. ; 
‘which,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘that.’ Also 
learned| Similarly Wicl., ‘also ye han 
lerned:’ ‘have both learned,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. Saw] 
‘Seen,’ Author. The same 
do| So Cov. (Test.), ‘do the same,’ and 
sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish., 
‘those thynges do;’ Jthemish, ‘ these 
things do ye’ (Wiel. inverts order): 
‘do,’ Auth. 

10. Now] ‘But,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), Bish. ; ‘and,’ Rhem.; the rest 
omit. At length] Sim. Rhem., 
‘at the length :’ ‘at the last,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘ sumtyme 
aftirward.’ Ye flourished 
again, etc.| ‘ Your care of me hath flour- 
ished again,’ Auth. ; ‘ ye flouriden agen 
to fele for me,’ Wicl. ; ‘ ye are revived 
agayne to care for me,’ Tynd., Coverd., 
Genev., Bish.; ‘ye are flouryshynge 
agayne to regarde me,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; 
‘your care is reuyued againe for me,’ 
Cran.; ‘you have reflourished to care 
for me,’ Rhem. 

11. In consequence of | ‘ In respect of,’ 
Auth.; ‘as for,’ Wicl.; ‘because of, 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘as be- 
cause of,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘as it were for,’ 


2 T know also how to be abased, I know too how 


Rhem. The translation in the text is 
probably a modern form of expression, 
but is appy. exact: the Auth. though not 
incorrect is somewhat ambiguous. 

What state] Sim. Coverd. (Test.), ‘what 
cases :’ ‘whatsoever state,’ Author. and 
the remaining Vv. (‘estate’) except 
Wicl., ‘ to be sufficient in whiche thingis 
Tam;’ Rhem., ‘to be content with the 
things that I have.’ Therein| 
‘Therewith,’ Author. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., Rhem. (see above), and 
Cov. (Test.), which omits. 

12. Know also] ‘*Know both,’ Auth., 
Rhem.; ‘can also,’ Wicl.; ‘can both,’ 
Tynd., Coverd. (Test.),° Cranm. ; ‘can,’ 
Coverd., Gen.; ‘knowe how,’ Bish. It 
may here be remarked in passing that 
the position of kai in Greek, and that of 
‘also,’ ‘even,’ or ‘ too,’ in English, will 
not always exactly correspond. Here, 
for instance, ral belongs to tamewovosat 
(see notes), whereas in English the ‘also’ 
seems idiomatically to take an earlier 
place in the sentence, and in position to 
connect itself with ‘know :’ the transla- 
tion in the notes, ‘know how also to be 
abased, orto be abased also,’ is literal, 
but scarcely idiomatic. The attention 
of the student is directed to this point, 
as it requires some discrimination to 
perceive when it is positively necessary 
to retain in translation the position of 


PHIEIPPEANS. 


Cuar. IV. 18-17. 


to abound: in every thing and in all things I have been fully taught 
both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 


18T can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me. 
standing ye did well that ye bare part with my affliction. 


14 Notwith- 
4 More- 


over, Philippians, yourselves also know that in the beginning of the 
gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated 
with me as touching any account of giving and receiving, but ye 
only: 1° since even in Thessalonica ye sent to me both once and 


again unto my necessity. 


kal, and when to yield to a more usual 
English collocation. I know too| 
‘And I know,’ Author., Bish.; ‘I can 
also, Wicl., Tynd.; ‘and I can,’ Cov. 
(both), Cranm., Genev. ; ‘I know also,’ 
Rhem. In every thing, etc.] 
‘Every where and in all things,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. (Gen. omits ‘ and’). 
Have been fully taught] Sim. Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), ‘Iam taughte:’ ‘ am instruct- 
ed,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

13. Jn Him that] ‘*Through Christ 
which,’ Author., Coverd., Cranm., Bish. ; 
‘thorow the helpe,’ Tynd., Gen. 
Strengtheneth] So Auth. and all Vv. ex- 
cept Wiel. and Cov. (Test.), ‘coumfort- 
ith.” The force of évdvy. cannot be ex- 
pressed without weakening the emphasis 
of the verse, and impairing the rhythm. 

14. Did well] ‘ Have well done,’ Auth. 

and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(both), Rhem., ‘han don wel.’ 
Bare part with] So Cov. (Test.), ‘ bear- 
ynge parte wyth,’ and sim. Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., ‘ye bare part with me in:’ 
“communicated with,’ Auth. ; ‘did com- 
municate to,’ Bish. ; ‘communicating to,’ 
Rhem. 

15. Moreover, Philippians, etc.| ‘ Now 
ye Phil. know also,’ Auth., and sim. Cov. 
(Test.), Gen., ‘and ye, etc.;’ ‘for ye 
filipensis witen also,’ Wicl.; ‘ye of Phi- 
lippos knowe that,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., 
(‘also that’); ‘ye Philip. knowe also,’ 
Bish. ; ‘and you also know, O Philipp.,’ 
Rhem. As touching any, etc.] 


M% Not that I seek after your gift; but 


‘As concerning giving and receiving,’ 
Author., Tynd., Cov. (omits ‘as’), Cran., 
Gen., Bish. ; ‘in resoun of thing gouun 
and takun,’ Wiel. ; ‘in the way of gyfte 
and receate,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘in the 
account of, etc.,’ Rhem. Perhaps the 
insertion of the indefinite ‘any ’ may be 
considered permissible as serving slightly 
to clear up the meaning; neither ‘an 
account’ or ‘the account’ (2hem.) is 
free from objections. 

16. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and the other 

Vy. except Wicl., which omits the con- 
junction. To me] So Wiel. : 
Auth. and all the other Vv. omit. 
Both once] ‘ Once,’ Author. and the other 
Vv. Unto] So Auth. and all 
Vy. ( Wicl., ‘in to ;’ Rhem., ‘ to’) except 
Coverd. (Test.), ‘to my behofe.’ It is a 
matter of grave consideration whether, 
in a literal but idiomatic translation like 
the Authorized Version, we can consist- 
ently introduce here and in similar pas- 
sages such periphrastic yet practically 
correct translations of eis as ‘ to supply,’ 
‘to meet,’ etc. As there might seem to 
be some difficulty in fixing the limits of 
such periphrases, and as the older Vv. 
appear to have but seldom adopted such 
transl., it is perhaps best in the majority 
of cases to retain the more literal, though 
sometimes less intelligible rendering. 

17. That] So Tynd., Coverd. (both), 
Cranm., Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘because,’ 
Auth. ; ‘for,’ Wiel. Seek after 
(twice)] ‘Desire,’ Auth. and the other 


Cua. IV. 18-28. PHILIPPIANS. 955 
I seek afte> the fruit that multiplieth unto your account. 1 But I 
have all things and abound: I am full now that I have received 
from Epaphroditus the things which came from you, a savor of 
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. ) But 


my God shall supply every need of yours according to His riches, 


with glory in Christ Jesus. 
glory for ever and ever. 


with me salute you. 


20 Now unto God and our Father be 
Amen. 

1 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. 
% All the saints salute you, but especially 


The brethren which are 


they that are of Czesar’s household. 
3 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. 


Vy. except Wicl., Co». (both), Lhem., 
‘seke.’ Your gift] ‘ A gift,’ 
Author., Bish. ; ‘ gifte,’ Wicl., Coverd. ; 
‘eyftes,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘the gifte,’ Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘a rewarde,” Gen. It 


is doubtful whether the plural translation. 


of Tynd. and Cranm. does not practically 
convey more clearly than the text the 
meaning of the present article, ‘the gift 
in the particular case, 7. e. ‘gifts,’ or 
even ‘any gift;’ compare notes: such 
translations, however, involve principles 
of correction that should be admitted 
with great caution. 
fruit] So Coverd., Gen., Rhem. ; ‘ fruit,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Bish. ; ‘ aboundant frute,’ 
Tynd. Cran.; ‘plentyfull frute, Coverd. 
(Test.). That multiplieth| 
‘That may abound,’ Author., and sim. 
Gen., ‘which may forther;’ ‘ abound- 
ing,’ Wiel., Bish., Rhem. The change 
is of no importance, but made to pre- 
serve in the translation the different 
words used in the original, here and in 
yer. 18, — mAcovd(ew and mepiooevery. 
Unto| ‘To,’ Auth. 

18. All things] So Wicl., Rhemish: 
‘all,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. The 
present translation of améxw (Author. 
Wicl., Cov. (both), Bish., Rhem.) is un- 
duly weak (Zynd., Cranm., Gen., omit 
‘have’); but the more literal transla- 
tion, ‘I have in full,” ‘I have for my 
own,’ seems as unduly strong, and some- 


The - 


what interferes with the bricf and cli- 
mactic character of the first portion of 
the verse. Now that, etc.| Sim. 
Tynd., Gen., Bish., ‘after that I had rec. :’ 
Cov. ‘whan. I rec. ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ whan 
I had received;’ Cranm., ‘after that I 
received ;’ Rhem., ‘ after I received.’ 
From] ‘ Of,’ Auth. and all Vy. 

Which came] So Tynd., Coverd., Gen. : 
‘which were sent from,’ Author., Cranm., 
Bish.; ‘which ye senten,’ Wicl., and 
sim. Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. 

Savor of sweet smell] Sim. Cov, ('Test.), 
‘a savoure of swetness:’ ‘of a sweet 
smell,’ Auth., Cran.; ‘odour of swet- 
nesse,’ Wricl.: ‘an odour that smelleth 
swete,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘ odour of sweete- 
ness,’ Cov., Rhem. ; ‘an odour of a sweete 
smell,’ Bish. 

19. With glory] ‘In glory,’ Author., 
Wicl., Cov. (both), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ glo- 
rious riches,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. 

In| So Wicel., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., 
Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. 

21. Salute you] So Coverd. (both), 
Rhem.: * greet,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vy. A change of translation in the 
same verse does not seem desirable. 

22. But especially] So Coverd. (both), 
Rhem.: ‘chiefly,’ Auth. : ‘moost sothli,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘and most of all,’ Tynd., Gen. 3; 
“most of all,’ Cran., Bish. 

23. The Lord] ‘ *Our Lord,’ Auth. 
Your spirit] ‘* You all, Amen,’ Auth. 


¥ CoM 
Babi 
PAs 
pee Hiv iets) 
2, Tuma 8! ay rs 
‘Biboaay best jet Ly ae A! 
aa ahd Ararat! 4 
as 
ee faye 
SS eae 


Ws Ca vynyat , é. 

ak 0 wary 

mY Sin her ERG KS 

a rs Cae SGA, +). a0" 
A ie ee sa 





THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


CHAPTER I. 


AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timo- 
thy our brother, 2 to the saints in Colossze and faithful brethren 
in Christ: grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father. 

3 We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
praying always for you, * having heard of your faith in Christ 
Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, ® because of 
the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard be- 


CuarTer I. 1. Christ Jesus] ‘*Jesus 
Christ,’ Auth. Timothy| 
So Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘ Timo- 
theus,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. 
The principle put forward in the preface 
to Auth., though apparently not always 
followed, seems sound and reasonable, 
—to adopt, in the case of proper names, 
those forms which are most current, and 
by which the bearers of the names are 
most popularly known. 

2. Saints in Colosse] Sim. Tyndale, 
Cov., Cran., ‘ sayntes which are at Co- 
lossee:’ ‘to the saints and faithful breth- 
ren in Christ which are at Colosse,’ Auth. 
and, with slight variations in order, the 
remaining Vv. God our 
Father] Auth. adds ‘*and the Lord Je- 
sus Christ.’ 

3. God the Father] ‘*God and the 
Father,’ Auth. 

4. Having heard] ‘Since we heard,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. (‘have’) ; 
‘herynge,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; 


‘for we haue hearde,’ Cran. The trans- 
lation of Auth., al. is perhaps somewhat 
ambiguous, ‘since’ having as much a 
causal as a temporal reference. As the | 
latter seems to be the most probable ref- 
erence in the present case (see notes in 
loc.), it will perhaps be best to adopt 
what seems a more definitely temporal 
translation; see notes on Phil. ii. 30 
(Transl.). To all] So Auth. 
A few of the Vv., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
retain the more literal ‘ toward.’ 

5. Because of | So Cov. (Test.) ; ‘for,’ 
Author., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘for the hope’s 
sake,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. 
Word of truth, etc.| So Cov. except that 
év (1st) is translated ‘by,’ and similarly 
Gen., ‘tne worde of truth which is in 
the gospel:’ ‘word of the truth of the 
gospel,’ Author., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘true 
worde of the gospell,’ Tynd., Cranm. ; 
‘worde of truth of the gospel,’ Coverd. 
(Test.), Bish. The true relation of the 


genitives thus seems expressed by three 
33° 


COLOSSIANS. Cuar. I. 6-11. 


258 
fore in the word of Truth in the gospel; ° which is come unto you, 
as it is also in all the world; and is bringing forth fruit and in- 
creasing as it is also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and came 
to know the grace of God in truth: 7 even as ye learned of Epa- 
phras our beloved fellow-servant, who is in your behalf a FAITHFUL 
minister of Christ ; ® who also declared unto us your love in the 
Spirit. 

9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard zt, do not cease 
to pray for you, and to make our petition that ye may be filled 
with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and under- 
standing ; 1! that ye may walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, 
bringing forth fruit in every good work, and increasing by the 
knowledge of God ; " being strengthened with all strength, accord- 


of the older Vv. ; see notes. The arti- 
cle preceding &AnSelas appears only to 
mark that &A/&. is used in its most ab- 
stract sense. This use of the article in 
the case of abstract nouns is commonly 
marked in this Revision by a capital 
letter. 

6. It is also (18t)] So Cov. (Test.), 

andsim. Wiel., ‘also itis;’ Rhem., ‘also 
in the whole world it is:’ ‘it is,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vy. 
Ts bringing forth fruit] ‘Bringeth forth 
fruit,’ Auth., Cov., Test. (omits ‘ forth’) ; 
‘makith frute, Wiel.; ‘is frutefull,’ 
Tyng., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ fructi- 
fieth,’ Rhem. And increasing| 
Auth. *omits. Is| ‘ Doth,’ 
Auth, Came to know] ‘ Knew,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vv. ( Coverd. 
Test., ‘haue knowen’) except Tynd., 
Cran., ‘had experience’ —a translation 
which similarly with text endeavors to 
express the force of é éyvwre (see notes 
on ver. 9), and deserves consideration. 

7. Even as ye] Author. adds ‘ *also,’ 
and omits ‘even.’ The translation of 
xaSws, whether ‘as’ or ‘even as,’ must 
depend on the general tone of the pas- 
sage: here the latter seems to connect 
the present verse a little more closely, 
with the concluding words of ver. 6. 


Beloved] ‘Dear,’ Auth., Tynd., Coverd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ moost dereworthe,’ 
Wicl.; ‘mooste beloued,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘deerest,’ hem. In your 
behalf] ‘ For you,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. It seems desirable to select a 
translation that should prevent bp be- 
ing possibly understood as ‘in your 
place ;” see notes. 

9. Make our petition] ‘Desire,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. (Zynd., Rhem., ‘ de- 
syringe’) except Wicl., ‘to axe;’ Cov. 
(Test.), ‘axing.’ May) So 
Coverd. (Test.), Rhem: ‘might,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., 
‘that ye be filled.’ Spiritual 
wisdom and, etc.| So Cov. (Test.): ‘ wis- 
dom and spiritual understanding,’ Auth. 
and all the remaining Vy. 

10. May] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: 

‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. 
except Wicl., ‘ that ye walke.’ 
Bringing forth fruit] So Cov. (Test.): 
‘being fruitful,’ Auth. It seems desira- 
ble to preserve the same translation as 
in ver. 6. By the| ‘*In the,’ 
Auth. 

11. Being strengthened] So Coverdale 
(Test.) : ‘strengthened,’ Author. and the 
remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘and be 
comfortid ; ’ Cov., ‘and to be strong.’ ; . 


COLOSSIANS. 


259 


Cuap. I. 12-16. 


ing to the might of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering 
with joy ; ® giving thanks unto the Father, which made us meet 
for the portion of the inheritance of the saints in light: © who 
delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into 
the kingdom of the Son of His love; ‘in whom we have Re- 
demption, even the forgiveness of our sins. ™ Who is the image 
of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature: 1 be- 
cause in Him were all things created, the things that are in 
heaven, and the things that are on earth, the things visible and 
the things invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or prin- 
cipalities, or powers, —all thmgs have been created by Him, and 


Strength] ‘ Might,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘vertu ;’ Cov. (both), 
‘power.’ It is perhaps desirable to re- 
tain the rapyxnots of the original. 

The might of His glory] So Cov. (both), 
Rhem., and sim. Wiel., ‘migt of His 
tlerenesse :’ ‘ glorious power,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. Joy] 
So Wicl., Rhem., and, with a different 
collocation, Cov. (Test.): ‘joyfulness,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vv.: comp. 
notes on Phil. ii. 29 ( Zransl.). 

12. Made] So Wicl.: ‘hath made,’ 

Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
For the portion] ‘To be partakers of,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ to 
the part of,’ Wiel. ; ‘ mete for the inher- 
itance,’ Cov.: ‘worthy of the parte of 
the enh.,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ worthy unto 
the part of the lot,’ hem. 

13. Delivered] So Wicl:: ‘hath deliv- 
ered,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
cept Coverd. (Test.), ‘hath drawen us 
oute.’ Out of | ‘ From,’ Auth. 
Translated] So Wiel., Coverd.: ‘hath 
translated,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
The Son of His love] So Rhem., and sim. 
Wicl., ‘the sone of His louynge:’ 
‘His dear Son, Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. except Cov, (Test.), ‘Hys be- 
loued Sonne.’ 

14. Redemption] Auth. adds ‘*through 
His blood.’ Our 


sins] ‘Sins,’ Auth, and all the other Vv. 

15. Firstborn] So Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘first begotten,’ Wiel., 
Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen. It is appar- 
ently not of much moment which of 
these expressions is adopted, as the 
meaning is substantially the same. In 
Rom. viii. 29, Auth. adopts the former, 
in Rey. i. 5, the latter: in expressions of 
this peculiar and mystical nature it seems 
desirable to preserve a uniform transla- 
tion. Before] So Cov. (Test.) : 
‘of,’ Author. and remaining Vv. This 
latter translation was retained ‘in ed. 1, 
as most inclusive; the arguments, how- 
ever, for the translation in the text (see 
notes) seem sufficiently strong to justify 
the alteration. 

16. Because] ‘ For,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. In] So Wicel., 
Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vv. The things that are] 
‘That are in heaven and that are in 
earth, visible and invisible,’ Auth., Cran., 
Bish., and, with some slight variations, 
Wicl., Cov., Gen., Rhem.: Tynd. alone 
inserts ‘things,’ four times as in the 
text. The repetition seems to give em- 
phasis to the enumeration ; see notes on 
Eph. i. 10 ( Transl.). Have 
been created] ‘ Were created,’ Author., 
Cran., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ben made 
of nought,’ Wicl.; ‘ are created,’ Tynd., 


COLOSSIANS. Caapr. I. 17=2hy 


260 


for Him; “ and He is before all things, and in Him all things 
subsist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church ; who is 
the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that in all things 
He might have the pre-eminence: because in Him it pleased 
the whole fulness of the Godhead to dwell, *° and by Him to recon- 
cile all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood 
of His cross; by Him, J say, whether they be the things on earth, 


or the things in heaven. 


21 And you also, though ye were in times past alienated and 


Cov. (both). 
presses both ‘have been’ and ‘are; 
there is sometimes a difficulty in know- 
ing which of the two to select : perhaps 
as a general rule (where idiom will per- 
mit, and there is no danger of miscon- 
ception) it is best to adopt the former 
when past time scems to come more in 
prominence, the latter when present ef- 
fects are more immediately the subject 
of consideration. ‘To apply this to the 
present case; as the former. part of the 
verse seems to show that the reference 
is perhaps more to the past than to pres- 
ent operations of the Divine power, these 
latter being more alluded to in the fol- 
lowing verse,—we may perhaps judi- 
ciously change the ‘are created’ of ed. 1 
into the translation now adopted in the 
text. On the translation of 80 airou, 
see Revised Transl. of St. John, p. xiii. 

17. In] So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. 
Subsist] ‘ Consist,’ Auth. 

18. Who] So Auth., Rhem., Wicl., and 
Cov. Test. (‘whyche’) ; ‘he is the beg.’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish. The 
relative translation is scarcely sufficient, 
as it does not fully convey the explana- 
tory force in the relative ‘being as He 
is.’ As, however, the translation in the 
commentary ‘seeing He is,’ though per 
se expressing clearly this force of ds, is 
perhaps somewhat too strong when 
placed in connection with what precedes 
and follows, it seems better to leave 


As the Greek perfect ex- 


, 


Auth. unchanged. In order that] ‘ That,’ 
Author. and all the other Vv. The oc- 
casional insertion of ‘in order’ seems 
useful where it is required to exhibit 
clearly the purpose involved in the ante- 
cedents. 

19. Because in Him, etc.] So similarly 
Wicl., ‘in Hym it plesid alle plentee to 
enhabite ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘it hath 
pleased alle fulnesse of the Godheade 
to dwel in Hym ;’ Rhem., ‘it hath wel 
pleased al fulness to inhabite:’ ‘for it 
pleased the Futher that in Him should 
all fulness dwell,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. (Coverd., ‘shuld dwell all f.’). 

20. Having made—cross| Auth. places 
this clause in the first part of the verse, 
immediately after ‘and.’ All the other 
Vy. retain the order of the Greek, but 
with some variations in the translation 
of the participle. The things 
on earth| ‘ Things in earth,’ Auth. 

The things in] ‘ Things in,’ Auth. 

21. And you also| ‘ And you,’ Author. 
and all the other Vv. On this transla- 
tion of kai, see notes on Eph. ii. 1. 
Though ye were, etc.] Similarly Rhem., 
‘whereas you were;’ compare Wiel., 
Cov. (Test.), ‘whanne ye weren :’ ‘that 
were,’ Auth. ; ‘whiche were,’ Zynd. and 
the remaining Vv. In times 
past| So Tynd., Cov., Gen. : ‘ sometime,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 
Understanding] So Auth. in Eph. iv. 18; 
‘mind,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vy. 
except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘ witte ;’ 


Cuap. I. 22-27, COLOSSIANS. 961 


enemies in your understanding in WICKED works, yet now hath He 
reconciled 7 in the body of His flesh through His death, to present 
you holy and blameless and without charge in His sight: * if at 
least ye continue in the faith, grounded and stable, and without 
bemg moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye heard, 
and which was preached in the hearing of every creature which is 
under heaven ; whereof I Paul became a minister. 

4 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and am filling fully up 
the lacking measures of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His 
body’s sake, which is the church: * whereof I became a minister, 
according to the dispensation of God which was given to me for 
you, to fulfil the word of God ; 2° even the mystery which hath lain 
hid from the ages and from the generations, but now hath been 
made manifest to His saints: 7 to whom it was God’s will to make 


‘by cogitation,’ Bish.: Rhem. ‘sense.’ 
In| So Wiel., Rhem., and, with a differ- 
ent construction, Tynd., Cov., Cranm., 
Gen., Bish.: ‘by,’ Author.: ‘ geuen to, 
ete.’ Cov. (Test.). 

22. His death| ‘ Death, Auth. and all 
the other Vv. Blameless and 
without charge] ‘Unblamable and unre- 
provable,’ Author.; ‘unwemmed and 
without repreef,’ Wicl.; ‘ unblameable 
and without faut,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., 
Gen., Bish. ; ‘unspotted and unblamea- 
ble,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘immaculate and 
blameless,’ Rhem. 

23. If at least] ‘If,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vv. except Wicl., ‘if netheles ;’ 
Rhem., ‘ if yet.’ Stable} So 
Wicl., Rhem.: ‘settled,’ Author. ; ‘stab- 
lysshed,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
Without being] ‘Be not,’ Auth. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘ unmouable.’ Heard] 
‘Have heard,’ Author. and all the other 
Vv. In the hearing of | ‘ To,’ 
Auth., Genev., Bish.; ‘in al creaturis,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘amonge all creatures,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cranm., Rhem.; ‘among euery 
creature,’ Cov. (Test.). 

Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am I 


Paul become :’ ‘am made,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vy. 

24. Now I| ‘*Who now,’ Auth. 

Am filling fully up|. ‘ Fill up,’ Author. ; 
“fille” Wiel. ; ‘fulfill,’ Tynd., Coverd. 
(both), Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; * accom- 
plish,’ Rhem. The lacking 
measures of | ‘That which is behind of,’ 
Auth:, Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Bish. ; ‘ the 
thingis that failen of, Wiel.; ‘the 
thynges that are wantynge of,’ Coverd. 
(Test.), sim. hem. ; ‘ the rest of,’ Gen. 

25. Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), 
‘am become:’ ‘am made,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. Was 
given| So Tynd., Cranm.: ‘is given,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 

26. Lain] ‘ Been,’ Author. Perhaps 
the slight change may better convey the 
force of the perf. participle. 

From the ages and from the gen.| ‘From 
ages and from gen.,’ Author., Wicl., 
them. ; Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., and 
Bish., paraphrase; ‘ from euerlastynge 
and the generacions,’ Cov. ('Test.). 
Hlath been| ‘1s,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. : 

27. It was God’s will] ‘God would,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 


COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 28-II: 4. 


262 
known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the 
Gentiles ; which is Christ among you, the hope of Glory: *% whom 
WE proclaim, warning every man, and teaching every man in all 
wisdom ; that we may present every man perfect in Christ: ™ to 
-which end I also toil, striving according to His working, which 
worketh in me with power. 


CHA PPE R-atL. 


For I would have you know what great conflict I have for you, 
and them in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in 
the flesh ; ? that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit 
together in love and unto all the riches of the full assurance of the 
understanding, unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, even 
Christ ; in whom are hiddenly all the treasures of wisdom and 


knowledge. 


Among (24)] So Coverd. (Test.): ‘ in,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 
Christ] ‘*Christ Jesus,’ Auth. 
28. Proclaim] ‘ Preach,’ Author, and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘schewen.’ 
29. To which end] ‘ Whereunto,’ Auth., 
Gen., Bish. ; ‘in whiche thing,’ Wiel. ; 
‘wherin,’ Zynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., 
Rhem. Toil] Comp. on 1 
Tim. iv. 10: ‘labor,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘ traueile.’ 
With power| Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ by 
power ;”’ Rhem., ‘in power :’ ‘ mightily,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘in vertu.’ 


Cuapter II. 1. Would have you, etc.] 

Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ would have you 
to know ;’ Fthem., ‘ wil haue you know :’ 
‘would that ye knew,’ Author., Cranm., 
Bish.; ‘wole that ye wite,’ Wiclif’; 
‘ wolde ye knewe,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. 
And them) ‘ And for them,’ Auth. 
In] ‘ At, Auth., Wicl., Cranm., Coverd. 
(Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ of,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Gehe. ed And as many] ‘ And 
Jor as many,’ Auth. 


4 Now this I say, that no one may beguile you with 


2. May] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. 
except Wicel., ‘that her hertis counforted.’ 
They being, etc.| ‘*Being knit together,’ 
Author. The riches] So Wicel., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘riches,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. The 
understanding| Author. and all the other 
Vv. omit the article; ‘ full understond- 
inge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘ persuaded 
underst.,’ Gen. Unto] ‘ To,’ 
Auth.: change to preserve parallelism 
with the preceding eis. Full 
knowledge] ‘ Acknowledgment,’ Auth. ; 
‘knowynge,’ Wicl.; ‘for to knowe,’ 
Tynd., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘knowledge,’ Cov. 
(both), Cranm.; ‘to know,’ Bish. The 
juxtaposition of emlyywois and yvaous 
seems here to justify this translation ; 
comp. notes. 

Of God, even Christ] ‘Of God *and of 
the Father, and of Christ,’ Auth. 

3. Hiddenly| ‘ Hid,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. 

4. Now] ‘ And,’ Author., Gen. ; ‘for,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘but,’ Coverdale (Test.), Rhem.: 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. omit. 


Cuap. II. 5-10. COLOSSIANS. 


263 


enticing speech. ° For if I am absent verily im the flesh, yet still 
Tam with you in the spirit, joymg wth you and beholding your 
order, and the firm foundation of your faith im Christ. © As then 
ye received Christ Jesus THE Lord, so walk ye in Him; ” rooted 
and being built up m Him, and being stablished in your faith, even 
as ye were taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 

8 Beware lest there shall be any one that maketh you his booty 
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after 
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. °% Because IN 
Him doth dwell in bodily fashion all the fulness of the Godhead. 


10 And ye are in Him made full; who is the head of every princi- 


That no one] ‘Lest *any one,’ Author. 
May] ‘Should,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Zhem., ‘ that 
no man disceyue you.’ 

Enticing speech] ‘ Enticing words,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘higthe of wordis ;’ Bish , ‘ per- 
suasion of word;’ Jthem., ‘ loftines of 
wordes.’ 

5. If I am absent verily, etc.] ‘Though 
I be absent,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Yet still Iam] ‘Yet am J,’ Author. and 
the other Vy. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ but 
yetam1;’ Rhem., ‘ yet inspirit Iam :’ 
Wiel. omits. Joying with 
you] ‘ Joying,’ Author. and the other Vv. 
except Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ rejoyc- 
ynge.’ Firm foundation] 
“Stedfastness,’ Author., Coverd. (both) ; 
‘sadnesse, Wiclif; ‘ stedfast fayth,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ constancie,’ 
Rhem. 

6. As then ye] ‘ As ye have therefore,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. ( Wicl, Rhem., 
‘therfor as ye han’). 

7. Being built up| Auth. and all the 
other Vv. either omit ‘ being,’ or slightly 
change the construction. The insertion 
is an attempt to mark the difference of 
tense in the two participles. The true 
force of the tense in each case (as is sug- 
gested in notes in loc.) is very diseerni- 
ble; they had already been rooted and 


were now remaining so (perf.); they 
were being built up (pres.) — the process 
going on from day to day. What was 
underneath was firm and was remaining 
so; what was above was receiving con- 
tinual increase and accession. 

Being stablished] So Coverd. (Test.) : 
Author. and the remaining Vy. either 
omit ‘ being’ or slightly change the con- 
struction. Your faith] ‘The 
faith,’ Author. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘the bileue;’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
‘faith.’ 

8. There shall be any one that, etc.] 
‘ Any man spoil you,’ Auth., Cov., Bish. ; 
‘that no man disceyue you,’ Wielif, 
Rhem. ; ‘eny man come and spoyle you,’ 
Tynd., Gen. ; ‘ony man deceaue you,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘lest be eny man spoyle 
you,’ Cran. 

9. Because] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vv. Doth dwell] 
©“Dwelleth,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
The introduction of the auxiliary appears 
to add a slight force- to the important 
verb xatoxe?- The principal emphasis 
apparently falls on év aitg@; the verb, 
however, both from meaning and posi- 
tion, is not without prominence. 

Tn bodily fashion] ‘ Bodily,’ Author. and 
the other Vv. except Rhem., ‘ corporally.’ 

10. In Him made full| Sim. Rhem., 
‘in Him replenished:’ ‘complete in 


264 COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. Il. 11-13. 


pality and power: “in whom ye were also circumcised with a 
circumcision not wrought with hand, in the putting off of the body of 
the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ ; % having been buried with 


Him in your baptism, wherein 


ye were also raised with Him 


through your faith in the operation of God, who raised Him from 


the dead. 


Him,’ Author. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘ filled in Him.’ 
Who] ‘ Which,’ Author. The otherwise 
unnecessary change adds here to perspi- 
cuity. Every] ‘ All,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. 

11. Ye were also circumcised] ‘ Also ye 
are cire.,’ Author. and the other Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘also you are,’ etc. 

A circumcision] So Coverd. (Test.), and 
sim. all the other Vv. (except Author.), 
‘circumcision :’ Author. inserts the defi- 
nite article. Not wrought with 
hand| ‘Made without hands,’ Author., 
Tynd., Genev., Bish. ; ‘not made with 
hond,’ Wicl., Rhem. (‘by’); ‘circum. 
without hondes,’ Coverd.; ‘not made 
with handes,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘done with- 
out handes,’ Cran. In the 
putting off, etc.] ‘In putting off,’ etc, 
Auth. ; ‘in dispoilynge of (off),’ Wiel. ; 
‘by puttinge of (off),’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., 
Bish.;. ‘in robbyng of,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘for asmoch as, etc.,’ Cranm. ; ‘ in spoil- 
ing of,’ Rhem. ‘The insertion of the ar- 
ticles gives a heaviness to the sentence, 
but seems required to show that ev 77 
amexd. is not to be regarded as modal, 
much less causal, as Cranm. 

Body of the flesh] ‘Body *of the sins of 
the flesh,’ Auth. In the cir- 
cumeision| So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and 
similarly Wicl., ‘in circumcision :’ ‘ by 
the circumcision,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ thorow 
the cire.,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen.; ‘ with 
the cire.,’ Cov. 

12. Having been buried] ‘ Buried,’ 
Author., Bish., Rhem.; ‘and ye ben 
biried,’ Wicl.; ‘being buried,’ Coverd. 
(Test.); ‘in that ye are buried, etc.’ 


18 And you also being dead in your trespasses and the 


Tynd. and the remaining Vy. 
notes on Phil. ii. 7 ( Transl.). 
Your baptism] ‘Baptism,’ Aath. and all 
the other Vy. Ye were also 
raised] ‘ Also ye are risen,’ Auth., and 
with slight variations the other Vv.: 
the kal, however, is rightly joined in 
translation with ouvnyepS. by Ti ynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 

Your faith] ‘Faith,’ Author. and, with 
some variations in construction, the other 
Vy. except Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem., 
‘the faith.’ The personal address seems 
here to render the translation of the arti- 
cle by the possessive pronoun correct 
and appropriate; there are, however, 
many cases in which such attempts at 
accuracy overload and embarrass the 
septence; consider Romans xii. 7 sq., 
where, as in many other passages, it re- 


Compare 


quires much discrimination to decide: 


when the article has a pronominal force, 
and when it is merely associated with an 


abstract neun. In the operation] 


‘Of the operation,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem. ;- 


‘wrought by the operacion of,’ Tynd., 
Coverd., Cranm., Gen.; ‘of God’s work- 
yuge,’ Cov. (Test.). On the translation 
of this word see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 18 : 
the rendering here adopted by Author. 
may perhaps be allowed to stand; the 
term ‘operation,’ though not usually a 
good translation, here not unsuitably 
representing the ‘potentia in actum se 
exserens’ (Caly. on Phil, iii. 21) alluded 
to and exemplified in the clause which 
follows. 

13. You also] Auth. and the other Vy. 
omit ‘also :’ 
Eph. ii. 1. 


see, however, notes on ° 
Trespasses] So’ 


Cuap. II. 14-17 COLOSSIANS. 965 


~ 


uncireumcision of your flesh, He quickened together with Himself, 
having forgiven us all our trespasses, 1 blotting out the handwrit- 
ing in force against us by its decrees, which was contrary to us ; 
jand He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; % und 
stripping away from Himself principalities and powers, He made a 
show of them with boldness, triumphing over them in it. 

16 Let not any man therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, 
or in the matter of an holy day, or of a new moon, or of a sab- 
bath; ’ which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is 


Auth. in Eph. ii. 1, and in the present 
verse: ‘sins,’ Author., Coverd. (both), 
Bish. ; ‘ giltis,’ Wicl.; ‘synne,’ Tynd., 
Cran., Genev. ; ‘the offenses,’ hem. 


noun: the insertion of it, however, 
coupled with the slight change in punc- 
tuation, seems to clear up the construc- 
tion, and render the connection of 


He quickened| So Wicl., Cov., and sim. 
Ehem., ‘ did he quicken :’ ‘hath he, etc.,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

Himself | ‘Him,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. Us| ‘*You,’ Auth. 
Our trespasses] So Tynd., Cranm., Gen. 
(‘your’), Bish. (‘your’): ‘ trespasses,’ 
Author. ; ‘giltis,’ Wicl.; ‘sins,’ Coverd. 
(both) ; ‘ offenses,’ Z?hem. 

14. Blotting out] So Author. ‘As this 
participle seems contemporary with the 
preceding, and to mark the circumstances 
under which the preceding aet took place, 
the present participle in English may be 
properly retained ; comp. notes on Phil. 
ii. 7 (Transl.). The more exact, ‘by 
having, etc.,’ is open to the objection of 
being cumbrous, and perhaps unduly 
modal, In force against us, etc. | 
‘Of ordinances that was against us,’ 
Author.; ‘that writynge of decre that 
was agens us,’ Wiel.; ‘the handwriting 
that was agaynst us contained in the 
lawe written,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘ the 
hande wrytynge that was againste us of 
the derre,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘the handwryt- 
ing of ceremonies that was against us,’ 
Gen., Bish. (‘ordinances’); ‘the hand- 
writing of decrees,’ them. 

Hath taken| So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. 
Rhem.: ‘took,’ Auth, and the remaining 
Vy. Auth, also omits the personal pro- 


clauses somewhat more perspicuous. 

15. Stripping, etc.| ‘ Having spoiled,’ 

Auth., Bish., and sim. Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘spoiling ;’ ‘and hath spoyled,’ 
Tynd. and the remaining Vy. 
With boldness] Similarly Cov. (Test.), 
‘boldely ;? Rhem., ‘ confidently :’ ‘ open- 
ly,’ Authorized and the remaining Ver- 
sions. 

16. Let not, etc.] ‘ Let no man there- 
fore,’ Author. and the other Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘ therfor no man juge.’ 

Eating or in drinking] ‘ Meat or in drink,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.) (omits ‘in’), 
Bish., Rhem. ; ‘meate and drinke,’ Tynd., 
Cov. (‘or’), Cran., Gen. 

In the matter of | ‘In respect of,’ Author. ; 
in part of,’ Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ for 
pece of,’ Lynd., Cov., Cran., Gen ; ‘ina 
part of,’ Cov. (Test.). A new 
moon] ‘ The, ete.,’ Author. and the other 
Vy. except Wicl., ‘neomynye.’ 

A sabbath] ‘Sabbath days,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; 
Rhem., ‘Sabotis.’ As odBBara is used 
with the force of a singular (Matth. xii. 
1, Luke iv. 16, al.), and as the preceding 
terms are in the singular, it seems bet- 
ter to revert to that form in translation. 

17. Christ’s]| So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: 
‘of Christ,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish.; ‘is in 
Christ,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 


34 


266 
Christ’s. 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. II. 18=22, 


18 Let no man beguile you of your reward, desiring to do 


at in false lowliness of mind and worshipping of the angels, intruding 
into the things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by: the 
mind of his flesh, ! and not holding fast the Head, from which the 
whole body by means of its joints and bands having nourishment 
ministered, and being knit together, increaseth with the increase of 
God. --- ° If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the 
world, why, as if ye were living in the world, do ye submit to ordi- 
nances, 7! Handle not, nor taste, nor touch, ” (which things are all 
to be destroyed in their consumption), after the commandments and 


18. Desiring to do it, etc.| ‘In a vol- 


untary humility,’ Auth. ; ‘ willynge to. 


teche in mekeness,’ Wicl. ; ‘ which after 
his awne ymaginacion walketh in the 
humblenes and holynes of angels,’ 7ynd., 
sim. Cov. ; ‘wyllynge in humblynesse,’ 
Cov. (Test.), hem. ; ‘by the humblenes 
and holynes of angels,’ Cranm.; ‘ by 
humblenes, and worshipping of angels,’ 
Gen. ; ‘in the humb. and w. of angels,’ 
Bish. The insertion of the epithet ‘ false,’ 
is only an exegetical gloss to assist the 
general reader. 
The angels] ‘ Angels,’ Auth, and all the 
other Vy. The insertion of the article 
is perhaps not a certain correction, as it 
may be used only to specify the genus. 
It seems however plausible to consider 
it as referring to the special class to 
whom this unbecoming adoration was 
habitually offered. The 
things} So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cranm., 
Rhem.: ‘those things,’ Auth., Bish. ; 
‘thinges,’ Tynd., Cov. The mind 
of his flesh] Sim. Wiel., with wit of his 
fleisch :’ Cov. (Test.), ‘in the meanynge 
of hys fleshe:’ Enem., ‘by the sense of 
his flesh :’ ‘his fleshly mind,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. (Cov., ‘his owne ’). 
19. Holding fast] ‘ Holding,’ Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘holdeth,’ Tynd. 
and the remaining Vv. The 
whole body] So Coverd. (both), Rhem. : 
‘all the body,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vv. By means of its joints} 


‘ By joints,’ Auth. and the other Vy. ex- 
cept Coverd. (Test.), ‘by knottes and 
jointes ;? Wicl., ‘bi boondis and join- 
ynges.’ Being knit together] 
“Knit together,’ Author., Genev., Bish. ; 
‘made,’ Wiel. ; ‘and is knet together,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘ fastened together,’ 
Cow, (Test.); ‘compacted,’ Rhem. 

20. If] ‘*Wherefore if, Auth. 

As if ye were living] ‘ As though living, 
Auth., Bish.; Wicl. (very exactly), ‘as 
men living;’ ‘as though ye yet lived,’ 
Tynd., Gen. (Cov. omits ‘yet.”) Do ye 
submit] ‘ Are ye subject,’ Auth. ; ‘demen 
ye,’ Wicl.; ‘are ye ledde with tradicions,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Bish. ; ‘holden with soch 
trad.,’ Coverd. ; ‘what do ye yet use de- 
crees,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘are ye bur- 
thened with traditions,’ Gen. ; ‘ decree,’ 
Ehem. The change in the text is intend- 
ed-to express that SoyuariCecde is here 
taken as in the middle voice. 

21. Handle not, etc.] ‘Touch not; taste 
not; handle not,’ Author. and the other 
Vy. (Lynd. and Genev. prefix ‘ of them 
that say’) except Wicl., ‘that ye touche 
not, nether taast, nether trete with hondis 
the thingis ;’ Cov., ‘as when they say, 
touch not this, taste not that, handle not 
that.’ 

22. Which things] ‘ Which,’ Auth. 
Are all] So Rhem., and in a similar col- 
location Cov. (Test.): ‘all are,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Coverd., 
‘all these things do.’ Change made to 


Cuap. II. 23-1. 1. 


COLOSSIANS. 


267 


doctrines of men? * All which things have indeed the repute of 
wisdom in voluntary worship, and lowliness of mind, and unsparing 
treatment of the body, not in any thing of real value, serving only 


to satisfy the flesh. 


CHAPTER III. 


_ Ip then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things 
that are above, where Christ is, sitting on the right hand of God. 


preserve not only the order but a distinc- 
tion between the definite and the indefi- 
nite relative ; see next verse. 

To be destroyed, etc.| ‘To perish with 
the using,’ Auwthor.; ‘in to deeth by the 
ilkeuse,’ Wicl.; ‘perysshe with the usyng 
of them,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘do hurte unto 
men because of the abuse of them,’ Cov., 
—an unusually incorrect translation, es- 
pecially for Coverd. ; ‘do all hurte with 
the very use,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ perysshe 
thorow the very abuse,’ Cranm. ; ‘be in 
corruption, in abusynge,’ Dish.; ‘unto 
destruction by the very use,’ hem. 

23. All which things| ‘ Which things,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ which.’ 

The repute] ‘A shew, Author., Bish., 
Gen., Rhem.; ‘a resoun,’ Wicl.; ‘the 
similitude,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘ shyne,’ Cov. 
(both). The definite article with ‘ repute’ 
seems required by usage and ordinary 
English idiom. 

Voluntary worship] Similarly Gen., ‘ vol- 
ontarie worshipping ;’ Bish., ‘ volunta- 
rie religion :’ ‘ will worship,’ Author. ; 
‘veyn relegioun,’ Wicl.; ‘chosen holy- 
nes,’ Zynd. ; ‘chosen spirituality,’ Cov. ; 
“supersticion,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen., Rhem. 
Lowliness of mind| ‘ Humility, Author. 
Possibly here the epithet ‘false’ might 
be inserted as in ver. 18. 

Unsparing treatment] ‘ Neglecting,’ Auth.; 
‘not to spare,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘in that 
they spare not,’ Tynd., Coverd. ; ‘in not 


sparyng,’ Coverd. (Test.), Genev., Bish. 
Not in any thing, etc.] Somewhat simi- 
larly Gen., ‘yet are of no value;’ ‘in 
any honor,’ Auth., Wiel., Bish., Rhem.; 
‘do the flesshe no worshype,’ Tynd., 
Coverd., Cran. ; ‘ counting it not worthy 
of ony honoure,’ Cov. (Test.). It will 
be observed (see below) that Gen. ap- 
proaches most nearly to the view taken 
in the text, but that it tacitly assumes a 
change of construction and an ellipsis of 
the verb substantive. To avoid this, and 
to be intelligible, we seem forced to 
some paraphrase like that in the text. 
Serving only, etc.| ‘ To the satisfying of,’ 
Author., and sim. the other Vy. except 
Gen., which thus paraphrases, ‘ but ap- 
perteine to those things wherwith the fleshe 
is crammed.’ 


Cuarter III. 1. [fthen] ‘If ye then,’ 
Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
Rhem., ‘ therfor if ye;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘yf 
ye are therfore.’ Were 
raised together] ‘ Be risen,’ Auth., Bish., 
Rhem.; ‘han rise to gidre,’ Wiel. ; ‘be 
then rysen agayne,’ Tynd., Cranm.; ‘be 
risen now with,’ Coverd.; ‘are therfore 
rysen with,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘be rysen 
agayne with,’ Gen. The 
things that are above} So Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘those things which are,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., 
‘the thingis that ben.’ The lighter rela- 
tive ‘ that’ seems here more suitable, and 


268 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. III. 2-8: 


? Set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that 


are on the earth. 
with Christ in God. 


8 For ye died, and your life hath been hidden 
4 When Gest our Life, shall be Hine 


then shall ye also be manifested with Him in glory. 
5 Make dead then your members which are upon the earth ; for- 
nication, uncleanness, lustfulness, evil concupiscence, and covet- 


ousness, the which is idolatry : 


6 for which things’ sake the wrath 


of God doth come on the children of disobedience; 7 among whom 


ye also once walked, when ye were living in these sis. 


accords with the translation in verse 2. 
On the supposed distinction between 
‘that’ and ‘which,’ compare notes on 
EEph. i. 23 ( Transl.), and Brown, Gram. 
of Grammars, 11. 5, p. 293 (ed. 1). Per- 
haps, as a very rough rule, it may be said 
that ‘which’ is a little more appropri- 
ately used when the clause introduced 
by the relative tends to form a distinct 
and separable predication in reference to 
_ the antecedent ; ‘that,’ when the relative 
so coalesces with its concomitants as 
either to form with them a species of ep- 
ithet, or to express a predominant and 
prevailing, rather than an accidental 
‘characteristic. Christ is, 
sitting] So Cov. : ‘ sitteth,’ Auth. , Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘is sitting at,’ Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

2. Set your minds] So Cov. (Test.), 

and Cov. (‘minde’): ‘set your affec- 
tion,’ Auth, and the remaining Vy. ex- 
cept Wicl., ‘ sauer tho thingis;’ Bish., 
‘affections’ (plural). 
The things that are (bis)] So Phem.: 
‘things’ (bis), Auth., Bish. ; ‘tho thingis 
that ben aboue not tho that ben, etc.,’ 
Wiel., Coverd. (Test.); ‘thynges that 
are above, and not on thinges which are,’ 
Tynd., Cov. (inverts relatives), Cranm., 
Gen. (‘ which,’ bis). 

3. Died] ‘ Are dead,’ Author. and all 
Vv.; see notes. Hath been] 
‘Js,’ Auth. 

4. Christ, our Lafe| So Cov.: Author. 
inserts ‘who is;’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen., 


8 But 
Bish. insert ‘ which is ;’ Wiel., Coverd. 
(Test.), Zthem., ‘ yoare liif.’ 
Be manifested (bis)| ‘ Appear’ (bis), 


Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; 
‘shewe him silfe— appeare,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen. The change seems neces- 
sary to keep up the antithesis between 
the céxpumra: and pavepwd7. 

5. Make dead then} ‘ Mortify therefore,’ 
Author. and the other Vv. except Wiel., 
‘ therfor sle ye.’ Which] So 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Coverd, 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘ that,’ and Cran., ‘ erthy 
membres.’ Here ‘ that’ seems inexact ; 
the original is Ta wéAn buav Ta em) Tis 
Vis. Lustfulness| Similarly 
Rhem., ‘lust:’ ‘ inordinate affection,’ 
Auth., Bish. ; ‘leecherie,’ Wiel. ; ‘un- 
naturall lust,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran. ; 
‘wantonness,’ Gen. The which] 
‘Which,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 

6. Doth come] So Coverd. (Test.), and 
somewhat similarly Cranmer, ‘ useth to 
come:’ £ cometh,’ Author., Tynd., Cov., 
Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘cam,’ Wicel. 

7. Among whom] So Cran.: ‘in the 
which,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish. ; 
‘in whiche,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘in which 
thynges,’ Tynd. Once] 
‘Sometime,’ Auth. Were 
living] ‘ Lived,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Cov. (Test.), ‘ did live.’ 

These sins] ‘*Them,’ Auth. 

8. Do ye] ‘ Ye also,’ Auth. ; the other 
Vy. adopt the simple imperative form, 
‘ put ye, etc.,’ but thereby somewhat ob- 


CaHar. III. 9-13; COLOSSIANS. 2969 


Now do ye also put away from you all these ; anger, wrath, malice, 
railing, coarse speaking out of your mouth; ° do not lie one to 
another, seeing that ye have put off from you the old man with his 
deeds ; !° and have put on the new man, which is being renewed 
unto knowledge after the image of Him that created him: | where 
there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, Bar- 
barian, Scythian, bond-man, free-man ; but Curist is all, and in 
all, 

2 Put ye on, then, as elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels 
of mercy, kindness, lowlimess of mind, meekness, long-suffering ; 
8 forbearing one another, and forgiving each other, if any man 


scure the connection of ka) with speis. 
Put away from you| So, in slightly va- 
ried order, Tynd., Cov., Cranm. ; Wicl., 
Gen., and Bish. omit ‘from you:’ ‘put 
off,’ Auth. ; ‘lay away,’ Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem. It seems desirable to preserve a 
slight distinction between amé3eoSe« and 
amekduoduevot, ver. 9. All 
these] So Auth., and sim. most of the 
other Vv. JSish. omits ‘ these,’ but is 
thus very liable to be misunderstood, 
especially as some edd. leave out the 
comma that ought to separate ‘ all’ and 
the subst. that follows. 

Railing] ‘Blasphemy,’ Author., Wicl., 
Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘cursed 
speaking,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen. 
Coarse speaking] ‘Filthy communica- 
tion,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; 
‘foule word,’ Wicl. ; ‘ filthy speakynge,’ 
Tynd., Gen.; filthy wordes,’ Cov.; ‘ fil- 
thie talke,’ Rhem. 

9. Do not lie] ‘Lie not,’ Author. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘nyle ye 
lie.’ Off from you] Auth. 
omits ‘from you,’ and similarly the other 
Vy. except Wicl., ‘spuyle ye you;’ Cov. 
(Test.), ‘robbyng yourselves ;’ Rhem., 
spoiling yourselves of.’ : 

10. Unto] So Rhem., and similarly 
Wicl., Cran., Bish., ‘in to:’ ‘in,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vy. 

Ts being renewed] ‘ Is renewed,’ Auth. 


11. There is no] ‘There is neither,’ 
Auth. And (bis)] So Wicl., 
Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘nor,’ Author. 
and the remaining Vy. exeept Coverd., 
which omits. Bond-man, 


Jree-man| Similarly Wiel., ‘bonde man 


and fre man :’ ‘bond nor free,’ Author. ; 
‘or,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘and,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.; Coverd., Gen., Bish. omit ‘ nor.’ 

12. Put ye] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
and similarly Wiocl.: Author. and the 
remaining Vv. omit. The insertion of 
the pronoun is perhaps desirable at the 
beginning of a new paragraph. 

Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vv. Elect] So Tynd., 
Cov. (Test.), Cranm., Gen.: ‘the elect,’ 
Auth., Cov., Bish., Rhem.; ‘the chosun,’ 
Wicl. Perhaps a more exact translation 
would be ‘chosen ones,’ as giving to 
€xAexTol its substantival force without the 
inaccuracy of the inserted article. 
Mercy] ‘*Mercies,’ Auth. 

Lowliness of mind| So Auth. in Phil. ii. 
3: ‘humbleness of mind,’ Auth. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., ‘mekenes ;’ Cov. 
(Test.), ‘lowlinesse ;’ Rhem., ‘humil- 
itie.’ 

13. Each other] Similarly Wiel., Cov. 
(Test.), both of which make a difference 
of translation between &AAfAwy and éav- 
tois (‘ech oon other—you silf,’ ‘ eche 
other — amonge yourselves ’) ; see notes. 


COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 14-18. 


70 
have a complaint against any ; as Christ forgave you, even so doing 
also yourselves. -1* But over all these put on Love, which is the 
bond of perfectness. % And let the peace of Christ rule in your 
hearts, to the which ye were also called in one body; and be ye 
thankful. 1° Let the word of Christ dwell within you richly, teach- 
img and admonishing one another in all wisdom, with psalms, hymns, 
and spiritual songs, in Grace singing in your hearts to God. “ And 
m every thing, whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the 
name of Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God the Father through 


Him. 


18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as it should be 


Auth. and the remaining Vv., ‘one an- 
other.’ Complaint] So Cov. 
(Test.): ‘quarrel,’ Author. and all the 
remaining Vv. As] ‘ Even 
as,’ Auth. In the attempt to express 
the true participial structure, idiom 
seems to require the union of ‘even’ 
with the latter member; compare Jynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. Even so, 
etc.] ‘So also do ye,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘so 
also ye,’ Wicl.; ‘even so do ye,’ Tynd., 
Cran., Gen.; ‘so do ye also,’ Coverd. 
(both) ; ‘so you also,’ Rhem. 

14. But| So Coverd., Rhem.: ‘and,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish. ; 
Tynd., Cran. omit. Over] 
So, with apparently similar local force, 
Wicl., ‘upon :’ ‘ above,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vy., some of which, as Cov. 
(both), ‘ above all things,’ probably here 
gave to ém) a decided ethical reference. 
These] Auth. adds ‘ things,’ and so the 
other Vy. Perhaps the indeterminate 
‘these,’ z. e. ‘ qualities,’ ‘ principles,’ ‘ vir- 
tues,’ is more exact. Love] 
So Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., Gen. : 
‘charity,’ Author., Wicl., Bish., Rhem. 
See notes on 1 Tim. i. 5 (Transl.). 

15. Christ] ‘*God,’ Auth. 

Were] ‘ Are,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Also called) Sim. Coverd., ‘called also :’ 
Auth. (‘which also’) and Rhem. (‘where- 
in also’) connect with the pronoun. 


16. Within] ‘In,’ Author. and all the 

other Vv. Tn all wisdom] 
Auth. and all the other Vv. place these 
words after, and connect them with the 
adverb. With] So Cov., Rhem. : 
‘in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
Hymns| Auth. prefixes ‘*and ;’ so also 
before ‘spiritual songs,’ but with not 
much critical probability. 
In grace] So Wicl., Rhem. : ‘ with grace,’ 
Auth., Cran., Bish. The change seems 
desirable to obviate such misunderstand- 
ings as Tynd., Coverd., ‘songes which 
have favour with them;’ Cov. (Test.), 
‘graciously ;’ Gen., ‘ with a certeyn 
grace.’ Singing in your hearts| 
So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘singing with grace 
in,’ Author., and similarly the remain- 
ing Vv. It seems especially desirable 
here to preserve the order of the Greek, . 
as @5ew év rats capd. stands in distinct 
contrast with another and audible sing- 
ing. 

17. And in every thing, whatsoever] 
‘And whatsoever,’ Author. It seems 
right to preserve the slight irregularity 
of the original as setting forth the studied 
inclusiveness of the command. 

Jesus Christ] ‘*Lord Jesus,’ Auth. 

God the Father|: ‘ God *and the Father,’ 

Auth. Through] ‘ By,’ Auth. 

and all the other Vv. i 
18. Your husbands] ‘ Your *own hus- 


Cuar. III. 19-IV. 1. 


in the Lord. 


COLOSSIANS. 


271 


19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not embittered 


towards them. * Children, obey your parents in all things; for 
this is well-pleasing in the Lord. ™ Fathers, provoke not your 
children, lest they be disheartened. * Bond-servants, obey ‘in all 
thimgs your masters according to the flesh; not with acts of eye- 
service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the 


Lord. 


3 Whatever ye do, do 7 from the heart, as to the Lord and 


not to men; * seeing ye know that of the Lord ye shall receive 


the recompense of the inheritance. 


Serve ye the Lord Christ ; 


for the wrong-doer shall receive back that which he did wrong- 
fully ; and there is no respect of persons. 


CHAPTER IV. 


- Masters, deal out unto your servants justice and equity ; seeing 
ye know that ye also have a Master in heaven. 


bands,’ Auth. 
‘Tt is fit,’ Auth. ; ‘it bihoueth,’ Wrel., 
Rhem.; ‘it is comly,’ Tynd., Coverd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘it is due,’ Coverd. 
(Test.). 

19. Embittered| ‘ Bitter,’ Auth. 
Towards| So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.; 
‘against,’ Author., Bish. ; ‘to,’ Wiel. ; 
‘unto,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 

20. In the Lord] ‘*Unto the Lord,’ 
Auth. 

21. Provoke] Auth., Coverd. (Test.), 
Cran., Gen., Bish. add ‘ to anger’ after 

‘children.’ This scems unnecessary : 
as in present practice ‘ provoke,’ when 
used absolutely, nearly always involves 
the notion of ‘ anger’ or ‘ indignation.’ 
Disheartened| ‘ Discouraged,’ Author., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘be not made febil hert- 
ed,’ Wicl. ; ‘be of a desperate mynde,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cranm.; ‘ware not feble 
mynded,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘cast downe 
their harte,’ Gen. 

22. Bond-servants] ‘Servants,’ Auth., 
Wicl., Tynd., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ ye 
servants,’ Cov. (both), Cran. 
Acts of eyeservice] ‘ Eyeservice,’ Auth. 


Tt should be} 


and the other Vv. except Weel., ‘ seru- 
ynge of the iye;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
(‘to the’). The Lord] 
‘God,’ Auth. 


23. Whatever] ‘*And whatsoever,’ 
Author. From the heart]. So 


Rhem.: ‘heartily,’ Auth, and the remain- 
ing Vy. except Wicl., ‘of wille.’ 
To men| ‘Unto men,’ Auth. 

24. Seeing ye know] Similarly Tynd., 
‘for as moche as ye knowe:’ ‘ knowing,” 
Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish., Rhem. ; 
‘wittynge,’ Wicl.; ‘and ye be sure,’ 
Cov., Cran. (omits ‘ ye’). 

Recompense] ‘ Reward,’ Author. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ gildynge’ [giv- 
ing]; Rhem., ‘ retribution.’ 

Serve ye] ‘*¥For ye serve,’ Auth. 

25. For] ‘*But,’ Auth. 

The wrong-doer| ‘ He that doeth wrong,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. ; ‘he that 
doeth injurie,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘whoso 
doth wronge, Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘he that 
doth sinne,’ Cran. Receive 
back] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
‘resceyue that, ete.:’ ‘receive for the © 
wrong which he hath done,’ Auth. 


COLOSSIANS. Crap. LV. 1-8 


272 

2 Persevere in your prayer, being watchful therein with thanks- 
giving ; ® withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us 
a door of the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for the sake of 
which I am also in bonds, ¢ in order that I may make it manifest, as 
T ought to speak. ° Walk in wisdom toward them which are without, 
buying up the time. © Let your speech be alway with grace, sea- 
soned with salt, so that ye may know how ye ought to answer every 
man. 

7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, our beloved 
brother, and faithful minister, and fellow-servant in the Lord: 
8 whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that he may 


Carter IV. 1. Deal out] ‘ Give,’ 5. Buying up] ‘ Redeeming,’ Auth., 


Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘do,’ Tynd. 
and the remaining Vv. . 

Justice and equity| ‘ That which is just 
and equal,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
(Cov. Test. omits ‘ which’) except Wiel., 
‘that that is just and euene.’ 

Seeing ye know] So Tynd.: ‘ knowing,’ 
Auth., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ witynge,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘and knowe,’ Coverd.; ‘beynge 
sure,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and be sure,’ Cran. 

2. Persevere in| ‘ Continue in,’ Auth. 

and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ be ye 
bisie in ;’? Rhem., ‘ be instant.’ 
Your prayer] ‘In prayer,’ Author. and 
all the other Vv. Being 
watchful] Sim. Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., 
‘watching:’ ‘and watch,’ Author. and 
the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘and 
wake.’ Therein] So Coverd. 
(Test.): ‘in the same,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘in 
it.’ 

8. Of the word] So Cov. (both), and 
sim. Wicl., ‘of word:’ ‘of utterance,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vv. except 
Rhem., ‘ of speech.’ For the 
sake of which] ‘For which,’ Auth., Wicl. ; 
‘wherfore,’ Zynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., 
Bish. ; ‘for the whyche thynge,’ Coverd. 
(Test.) ; ‘for the which,’ Rhem. 

4. In order that] ‘ That,’ Author. and 
all the other Vy. 


Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ agenbi- 
ynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘and redeme,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cranm., Genev.; ‘lose no opportunite,’ 
Cran. 

6. So that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. The slight change is made 
to express distinctly the infin. of conse- 
quence, and to prevent ‘that’ being re- 
garded as indicative of purpose, and as a 
translation of tva with the subjunctive. 

7. Our beloved] So Gen., and similarly 
Rhemish, ‘our dearest:’ ‘a beloved,’ 
Author. ; ‘moost dere’ (no art.), Wiel. ; 
‘the deare,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘the mooste 
deare,’ Coverd. (Test); ‘the beloved,’ 
Cranm. ; ‘a dearely beloued,’ Bish. 
Faithful] So Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., 
Bish., Rhem. ; ‘a faithful,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Gen. 

8. Have sent] So Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘sent.’ 
As Tychicus appears certainly to have 
been the bearer of this letter (compare 
notes on Phil. ii. 28, and on Philem. 2), 
the pres. ‘send’ was adopted in ed. 1. 
Our English perfect, however, seems to 
be used idiomatically with a similar epis- 
tolary reference to present time, and may 
thus be left unchanged. 

This very] ‘The same,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘this 
same ;”’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ therfore.’ 


Cuap. IV. 9-13. COLOSSIANS. 273 


know your estate, and comfort your hearts; ° with Onesimus our 
faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make 
known unto you all things which are done here. 

10 Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the 
cousin of Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments (if 
he come unto you receive him); ™ and Jesus, which is called Jus- 
tus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow-workers 
unto the kingdom of God, men who have proved a comfort unto me. 
12 Hpaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, saluteth 
you, always striving earnestly for you in his prayers, that ye may 


stand fast, perfect and fully assured in all the will of God. 


3 For 


I bear him witness, that he hath much labor for you, and them that 


May| ‘ Might,’ Author. Change to pre- 
serve the ‘ succession’ of tenses. 

9. Our faithful] Sim. Cov. (Test.), 
‘our mooste beloued and faythful:’ ‘a 
faithful,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
except Wicl., moost dere and feithful ;’ 
Rhem., ‘ the most dere and faithful.’ 
Which are done] So Author., except that 
in the more approved editions ‘ are,’ 
which is necessary for the construction, 
is in italics, while ‘done,’ which is a 
mere exegetical insertion, is in the ordi- 
nary character. A better, but now anti- 
quated, translation is that of Tynd., al., 
‘which are adoynge here.’ 

10. Mark] So Wicel., Coverd. (Test)., 
Rhem.: ‘Marcus,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv.; see notes on ch. i. 1. 

_ The cousin of | So Wicl., and sim. Rhem., 
‘the cosin-german of :’ ‘sister’s son to 
Barnabas,’ Auth. and sim. Tynd. (‘ Bar- 
nabassis systers sonne’) and the other 
Vv. It seems very doubtful whether 
this is to be considered a mistake : it is 
not improbably an archaic mode of ex- 
pression, equivalent to the ‘ Geschwist- 
erkind,’ of the German. The following 
words are included by Auth. in a paren- 
thesis: this seems hardly correct; see 
notes. 

11. Men who have proved] ‘ Which 
have been,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., Rhem. ; 


35 


‘that when,’ Wiel. ; ‘ which were,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Gen. ; ‘which comforted,’ Coverd. 
(Test.). 

12. Christ Jesus] ‘*Christ,’ Auth. 
Striving earnestly] Sim. Marg., ‘ striv- 
ing :’ ‘laboring fervently,’ Auth., Bish., 
and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., 
‘laboreth fervently ;’ ‘bisie for you,” 
Wicl. ; ‘alwaye carefull,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. His prayers| Auth. 
omits ‘his.’ Stand fast] 
‘Stand,’ Author. and all the other Vv. 
The addition of the epithet is useful as 
implying what really seems involved in 
the or7Te, and as also leaving the second- 
ary predicates reAcio: and emAnpod. 
more independent and emphatic. 

Fully assured| ‘*Complete,’ Auth. 

13. Witness] Sim. Wiel., ‘ witness- 
ynge:’ ‘record,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. except Rhem., ‘ testimonie.’ 
Much labor] ‘*A great zeal,’ Auth. 
Them that are] So Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; 
the other Vy. vary: Wicl. inserts ‘ that 
ben’ in both clauses ; ‘them of L. and 
them of H.,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish. ; ‘them 
at L. and at H.,’ Coverd.; ‘that are 
of’ (in both clauses), Cranm.; ‘ that are 
in’ (in both clauses), Bish. ; ‘ that be at 
L., and that are at H.,’ Rhem. In this 
variety the translation of Cov. (Test.) 
and Auth. is, on the whole, most satis- 


274 


are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. 
physician, saluteth you, and Demas. 


COLOSSIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 14-18. 


M4 Luke, the beloved 
15 Salute the brethren that 


are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his 


house. 


16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it 


be read also in the church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye likewise 


read the epistle from Laodicea. 


M% And say to Archippus, Take 


heed to the ministry which thou receivedst in the Lord, that thou 


fulfil it. 


18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. 


BONDS. GRACE BE WITH YOU. 


factory ; the insertion ‘that are,’ in the 
first clause, makes the meaning perfectly 
clear, while its omission, in the second, 
prevents the sentence being unduly heavy. 

14. Saluteth you] So Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., and, in the same order, Tynd., 
Cov., Cranm., Gen., ‘greteth:’ ‘greet 
you’ (at the end of the verse), Author., 
Wicl., Bish. 


REMEMBER MY 


15. That are] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘which are,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. Change to preserve a uniform 
translation with ver. 13. 

17. Receivedst| ‘ Hast received,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘hast 
takun.’ 

18. With you] Auth. adds ‘*Amen.’ 


THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


AUL, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, 
unto Philemon our dearly beloved and fellow-laborer, ? and to 
Apphia our sister and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the 
church in thy house: ® grace be unto you, and peace, from God 
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 4 I thank my God, always 
making mention of thee in my prayers, ° hearing, as J do, of thy 
love and the faith, which thou hast toward the Lord, and dost show 
toward all the saints; ° that the communication of thy faith may 
become effectual unto Christ Jesus in the knowledge of every good 


1. Beloved and] ‘ Beloved, and ete.,’ 
Auth. The comma should be removed, 
as nue@y apparently belongs both to aya- 
mT@ and cuvepy@. 

2. Our sister] ‘*Our beloved Apphia,’ 
Auth. To Arch.| So all the 
Vv. except Author. and Coverd. (Test.), 
which omit the ‘ to.’ 

8. Grace be unto you] ‘ Grace to you,’ 
Auth. The insertion of ‘be’ with ‘to’ 
or ‘unto’ is the form adopted by Auth. 
elsewhere in St. Paul’s Epistles. 

4, Always making mention] So, in 
point of order, Rhem. The other Vv. 
differ in their mode of placing the ad- 
verb: Author. places it after ‘ of thee ;’ 

Wicl. connects it with the foregoing 
clause; Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
insert it directly after ‘mention.’ It 
seems best to follow the order of the 
Greek, and so to retain the slight empha- 
sis which the position implies. 

5. Hearing, as I do] ‘ Hearing,’ Auth., 


Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; 
‘when I heare,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen. ; 
‘for so moch as I heare,’ Coverd. The 
participle explains the circumstances 
which led to the prayer being offered. 
The faith} So Coverd. (Test.) : ‘ faith,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 

Lord] ‘Lord *Jesus,’ Auth. 

Dost show toward] ‘And toward,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ and 
to;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘and unto.’ 

The saints| So Rhem.: ‘saints,’ Author. 
and the remaining Vv. except Wicel., 
‘holi men.’ 

6. Unto Christ Jesus] ‘In Chr. Jesus,’ 
Author., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., 
and at the end of the verse. So, in point. 
of order, Tynd., ‘by Jesus Christ ;’ 
Cranm., Bish. ‘towarde J. C.;’ ‘the 
good that ye have in J. C.,’ Cov. ; Gen., 
with a transposed order, ‘ whatsoeuer 
good thing is in you tliroughe Christ 
may be knowen.’ 


PHILEMON. 7-14, 


276 


thing which isin us. 7 For I had much joy and consolation in thy 
love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by thee, 
brother. 

8 Wherefore, though I have much boldness in Christ to enjoin 
thee that which is becoming, ° yet for love’s sake I rather beseech 
thee. Being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a pris- 
oner of Jesus Christ, 1° I beseech thee for my own child Onesimus, 
whom I begat in my bonds; ! which in time past was to thee un- 
profitable, but now profitable to thee and to me; ” whom I have 
sent back to thee. But do thou receive him, that.is, mine own 
bowels; 7° whom I was purposing to retain with myself, that in thy 
stead he might minister unto me in the bonds of the gospel: # but 
without thine approval would I do nothing, that the good thou 


In the knowledge} Sim. Wicl., ‘in know- 
inge;’ Coverd. (Test.), Cranm., Bish., 
‘in the knowledge ;’ hem., ‘in the ag- 
nition of:’ ‘by the acknowledging of,’ 
Auth. ; ‘thorow knowledge,’ Tynd., Cor.; 
Genev. changes the construction ; sce 
above. Us] ‘*You,’ Auth. 

7. [had] ‘ *We have,’ Auth. 

Much] ‘ Great,’ Auth. Hearts] 
So Tynd., Cran., Gen.: ‘bowels,’ Auth., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘entrailis,’ Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘are hertely refreszhed,’ Cov. 
Have been] ‘ Are,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘ restiden;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘dydreste;” Rhem., ‘ haue 
rested.’ 

8. Have much boldness} Sim. Wiel., 
‘hauyng myche trist;’ Lhem., ‘hauing 
great confidence :’ ‘might be bold,’ Auth., 
Cranm. ; ‘be bold,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘have 
great boldnes,’ Cov.; ‘I beynge bold,’ 
Cov. (Test.) ; ‘be much bolde,’ Bish. 
Enjoin thee] So Auth., following Tynd. 
and Gen.; an archaism which it does 
not seem necessary to remove. 
Becoming] Sim. Tynd., Cov., Gen., ‘ that 
which becometh the:’ ‘ convenient,’ 
Auth., Bish.; ‘that that perteyneth to 
profete,’ Wicl.; ‘that maketh matter,’ 
Coverd. (Test.); ‘that which was thy 
dewtye to do,’ Cranmer; ‘that which 


perteyneth to the purpose,’ Rhem. 

9. Thec] Auth. places a comma after 
‘thee,’ and a full stop at the end of the 
verse ; so very similarly all the other 
Vy.: Wicl. (‘sithen thou art suche as, 
etce.’) and 2hem. (* whereas thou art such 
an one, etc.’) refer the to1odros dy to 
Philemon. 

10. Own child] ‘Son,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vy. Begat| So 
Wicl., Tynd., Gen.: ‘have begotten,’ 
Auth, and the remaining Vy. 

12. Have sent] So Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl, Coverd., ‘sente:’ see 
notes on Col. iv. 8 ( Zransl.). 

Back to thee] Author. omits ‘*to thee.’ 
But do, etc.] ‘ Thou therefore,’ Auth. 

13. Was purposing to retain] ‘ Would 
have retained,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘woold 
with hoold,’ Wicl. ; ‘wolde fayne have 
retayned,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘ wolde 
haue kepte,’ Cov. (both); ‘ would have 
fayne retayned,’ Bish. 
Myself | ‘Me,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vy: Might minister] So 
Rhem. ; ‘might have ministered,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., 
‘schulde serve.’ 

14. Thine approval] ‘ Thy mind,’ Au- 
thor. and the other Vv. except Wiel., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ counceil.’ 


15-20. PHILEMON. 


271T 


doest should not be as it were of necessity, but. willingly. 1 For 
perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou mightest re- 
ceive him eternally ; no longer as a servant, but above a servant, 
a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, 
both in the flesh, and in the Lord? " If therefore thou countest 
me a partner, receive him as myself. 18 But if he hath wronged 
thee, or oweth thee ought, this set down to my account; ®I Paul 
have written with mine own hand, I will repay zt: that I may not 
say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. 
20 Yea, brother, may I reap profit from thee in the Lord: refresh 


my heart in Christ. 


The good thou doest] Sim. Cov. (both: 
Cov. Test., ‘that thou, ete.’), Cranm., 
‘the good whiche thou doest;’ Tynd., 
‘that good which springeth of the :’ 
‘thy benefit,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ thy 
good,’ Wicl., Rhem. 

15. Therefore] So Auth. and all the 
other. Vv.; and apparently with good 
reason, for the more usual translation, 
‘for this cause,’ seems to fail in connect- 
ing the first and second members with 
sufficient closeness, unless emphasis is 
laid on ‘ this.’ Mightest| So 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘ shouldest,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. 

Eternally] ‘¥or ever, Author. and the 
other Vv. except Wiclif, ‘ withouten 
ende.’ 

16. No longer] ‘Not now,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘now 
not.’ 

17. If therefore] So Gen., Rhem., and 
sim. Wicl., ‘ therfor if :’ Auth., Cranm., 
Cov. (Test.), Bish., ‘if thou count me 
therefore ;’ Cov. omits. As ody has ap- 
parently here somewhat of an inferential 
tinge (see notes on Phil. ii. 28), the 
translation ‘ therefore ’ may be retained, 
and be allowed here to occupy the same 
position in the sentence as ody in the 
Greek. Countest] So Gen., 
and similarly as to mood, Wicl., ‘ hast ;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘holdest:’ ‘count,’ Auth., 


Tynd., Cran., Bish.; ‘holde me for,’ 
Coverd. ; ‘take me for,’ Rhem. On the 
proper use of the indicative and subjunc- 
tive with ‘if,’ see Latham, Engl. Lang. 
§ 614 (ed. 3), and notes on 2 Thess. iii. 
14 (Zransl.). 

18. But if| So Coverd. (both) : ‘if,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘for if;’ Rhem., ‘ and if,’ 

Hath wronged| So Auth., and in respect 
of the insertion of the ‘hath’ all the 
other Vy. This therefore may be re- 
garded as one of those cases in which 
our idiom requires the auxiliary to be 
inserted. If omitted, the event seems 
too far removed back into the past : com- 
pare 1 Thess. ii. 16 ( Transl.). 

This set down, etc.| ‘*Put that down on 
mine account,’ Author.; ‘arrette thou 
this thing to me,’ Wicl.; ‘that laye to 
my charge,’ Tynd., Con. (Cov. Test., 
‘lay that’), Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘that 
impute to me,’ Rhem. It will be ob- 
served that six out of the nine Vy. re- 
tain the emphatic position of the pro- 
noun. 

19. Written] So Rhem.: ‘ written it,’ 
Author. and the remaining Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘wroot;’ Genev., Bish., ‘ written 
this.’ That I may not say] 
Very sim. Wicel., ‘ that I seie not:’ ‘al- 
beit, I do not say,’ Author., Gen., Bish. ; 
“so that Ido not saye,’ Tynd., Coverd. 


278 


PHILEMON. 


21—25. 


21 Having confidence in thy obedience I have written unto thee, 


knowing that thou wilt do even above what I say. 


22 Moreover at 


the same time prepare me also a lodging: for I hope that through 
your prayers I shall be granted unto you. 

3 Hpaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus, saluteth thee : 
*4 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-laborers. 
5 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. 


(both), Cranmer; ‘not to say,’ Rhem. 

20. May I reap profit from] ‘Let me 
have joy of,’ Auth.; ‘I schal use thee,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘let me enjoye the,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Bish. ; ‘thus shall I enjoye thee,’ 
Cov. (Test.) ; ‘1ct me obteyne this fruit,’ 
Gen. ; ‘graunt I may enjoy thee,’ hem. 
Heart] So Cov.: ‘bowels,’ Author. and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
‘entrailis.?” Christ] ‘*The Lord,’ Auth. 

21. Have written] So Coverd. (both), 
Rhem. ; ‘wrote,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vy. Do even| * Also 
do, Auth., Cranm., Bish.; ‘aboue that 
also,’ Rhem.; the rest omit «a in trans- 
lation. Above what| Sim. 
Coverd. (Test.), ‘ above it that;’ Rhem., 


THE 


‘above that also which:’ ‘more than,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘ ouer that that I see.’ 

22. Moreover at the same time] Sim. 
Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., ‘moreover 
prepare:’ ‘but withal,’? Author.; ‘ also 
make thou redi,’ Wiel. ; ‘and make redy 
also,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘moreover prep. me 
also,’ Bish. ; ‘and withal,’ Rhem. 
Granted] ‘ Given,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ restored.’ 

23. Saluteth] Sim. as to number and 
position Wicl., ‘gretith;’ Cov. (Test.), 
‘saluteth the in Christ Jesus :’ ‘ there 
salute thee,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vv. except Cov., ‘ saluteth.’ 

24. Spirit] Auth. adds ‘*Amen.’ 


END. 











Pe a ee aha 
kite Wad. Tcsirdliotie 202 ai sons Quce xr 
Pee reed tithe yd wire oO Hire mode ta" 





TARA MIe Ss cA CRONE 


hd 6? 


eet teet TT URS fit > aE A at De a 


} 


hr),2 (ERAIGIE 1 tq RoE yATS 





CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


WITH A 


REVISED TRANSLATION. 


BY 


RT. REV. CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, D.D., 


LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. 





BOSTON: 
DRAPER AND HALLIDAY, 


NOS. 58, 60, 62, AND 64 CORNHILL. 
NEW YORE: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILA.: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO. 
CINCINNATI: GEO. 8. BLANCHARD « CO. 


1866. 


; — ms 
ae ; 


. 
nl . 
¢ - ‘a 
« . 7 — t i 
; t ra 
; Pl 
t uw ‘ 4 
‘ 
r Z r 
; 4 
Ape s 
: f 
ss “eked = 
j : . 
“ 
, <a ¢ 44? 
* ' ? oe 
5 » 
- 7 
} 
—— 
Mu ba 
¢ = 
% 
4 's 
eae i n 4 
f 7 
x - 


reel tate Be ) ih Spe) eMSY 


- ’ 








— 
bo | 


ey 


ia / oleate ! Aa . 4 
a oie agrestis Pa: \eees 


cre = ei¥ 4 > rf 
; A ere Tee urinary, Sot COR Te 
oxi TER 2+ mJ dye 0?) isha 4 x 
a oe thw to Cobo 
om > B - 
. ; ns * 
7.5 _ y 
see ae | Ae ; 7 ’ 
mn 2 } - a 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


Tue following Commentary is substantially the same, both in principles 
and execution, as those on the Galatians and Ephesians. I have, however, 
earnestly striven, on the one hand, to introduce improvements, and, on the 
other, to amend defects of which time, experience, and, above all, the kind 
criticism of friends have not failed to convince me. 

I will briefly notice both. 

In the first place the reader will find the. substance of the grammatical 
references more ‘fully stated in the notes, while at the same time care has 
been taken to modify and repress the use of technical terms, as far as is con- 
sistent with the nature of the Commentary. I confess I cannot yet persuade 
myself that the use of technical terms in grammar, independently of sub- 
serving to brevity, does not also tend to accuracy and perspicuity ; still so 
many objections have been urged by judicious advisers, that I have not 
failed to give them my most respectful attention. This modification, how- 
ever, has been introduced with great caution; for the exclusion of all tech- 
nical terms would not only be wholly inconsistent with the lex operis, but 
would be certain to lead the way to a rambling inexactitude, which in gram- 
mar, as in all other sciences, can never be too scrupulously avoided. 

I have also endeavored, as far as possible, to embody in the notes the sen- 
timents and opinions of the dogmatical writers, more especially those of the 
great English Divines to whom I have been able to refer. Yet here again 
this has been subordinated to the peculiar nature of the Commentary, which, 
to be true to its title, must mainly occupy itself with what is critical and 
grammatical, and must in other subjects confine itself to references and 
allusions. Still, as in the preface to the Ephesians, so here again, let me 
earnestly entreat my less mature readers not to regard as the mere biblio- 
graphical embroidery of a dull page the references to our English Divines. 


IV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


They have all been collected with much care ; they are nearly in every case 
the aggregations of honest individual labor, and if they prove to. the student 
half as beneficial and instructive as they have been to the collector, they will 
not have been adduced in vain. Let us never forget that there is such a 
thing as the analogy of Scripture ; that it is one thing generally to unfold the 
meaning of an individual passage, and another to do so consistently with the . 
general principles and teaching of Scripture. The first may often be done 
with plausible success by means of acuteness, observation, and happy intui- 
tions; the second, independently of higher aids, is only compatible with 
some knowledge of dogmatical theology, and some acquaintance with those 
masterpieces of sacred learning which were the glory of the seventeenth 
century. On verifying these references, the allusion to the individual pas- 
sage of Scripture will, perhaps, sometimes be found brief and transient, but 
there will ever be found in the treatise itself, in the mode that the subject is 
handled, in the learning with which it is adorned, theology of the noblest 
development, and, not unfrequently, spiritual discernment of the very highest 
strain. 

With many deductions, the same observations may in part apply to the 
dogmatical treatises of foreign writers referred to in the notes. Several 
recent works on +Christian doctrine, as enunciated by the sacred writers, 
whether regarded individually or collectively, appear to deserve both recog- 
hition and consideration. I would here specify the dogmatical works of 
Ebrard and Martensen, the Pflanzung und Leitung of Neander, and the 
Théologie Chrétienne of Reuss, a work of no mean character or pretensions. 
By the aid of these references, I do venture to think that the student may 
acquire vast stores both of historical and dogmatical theology, and I dwell 
especially upon this portion of the Commentary, lest the necessarily frigid 
tone of the critical or grammatical discussions should lead any one to think 
that I am indifferent to what is infinitely higher and nobler. To expound 
the life-giving Word coldly and bleakly, without supplying some hints of its 
eternal consolations, without pointing to some of its transcendent perfections, 
its inviolable truths, and its inscrutable mysteries,— thus to wander with 
closed eyes through the paradise of God, is to forget the expositor’s highest 
duty, and to leave undone the noblest and most sanctifying work to which 
human learning could presume to address itself. 

Among semi-dogmatical treatises, I would earnestly commend to the atten- 
tion of grave thinkers the recent contributions to Biblical Psychology which 
are occasionally alluded to in the notes (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16). Without 
needlessly entrammelling ourselves with arbitrary systems, without yielding 
too prone an assent to quasi-philosophical theories in a subject that involves 
much that is equivocal or indemonstrable, it-seems still our duty to endeavor 


/ 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vv 


to grasp the general principles of psychology, which appear to have been 
recognized by the sacred writers, and to realize those aspects under which 
they viewed the parts and portions of our composite nature. No thoughtful 
man, after reading Philo, and observing how deeply psychological specula- 
tions, sufficiently consistent and harmonious, give their tinge to his writings, 
could hesitate to believe that a contemporary, at least as well educated as the 
Jew of Alexandria, elevated by a higher consciousness, and illumined by a 
truer knowledge, both thought and wrote on fixed principles, and used lan- 
guage that is no less divinely inspired than humanly consistent and intelligi- 
ble. It is but a false or otiose criticism that would persuade us that the 
terms with which St. Paul designated the different portions of our immaterial 
nature were vague, uncertain, and interchangeable; it is indeed an idle 
assertion that Biblical Psychology can be safely disregarded by a thoughtful 
expositor. 

A slight addition has been made to the purely critical notices. As in the 
former Commentaries, the Text is that of Tischendorf, changed only where 
the editor did not appear to have made a sound decision. These changes, as 
before, are noted immediately under the text. In addition to this, however, 
in the present case, brief remarks are incorporated in the notes, apprizing 
the reader of any variations in the leading critical editions which may seem 
to deserve his attention. An elementary knowledge of Sacred Criticism can 
never be dispensed with, and it is my earnest hope that the introduction of 
criticism into the body of the notes may be a humble means of presenting 
this subject to the student in a form somewhat less repulsive and forbidding 
than that of the mere critical annotation. Separate notes of this kind are, I 
fear, especially in the case of younger men, systematically disregarded ; 
when, however, thus incorporated with grammatical and philological notices, 
when thus giving and receiving illustration from the context with which they 
are surrounded, it is my hope that I may decoy the reader into spending 
some thoughts on what seem to be, and what seem not to be, the words of 
Inspiration, on what may fairly claim to be the true accents of the Eternal 
Spirit, and what are, ouly too probably, the mere glosses, the figments, the 
errors, or the perversions of man. 

Possibly a more interesting addition will be found in the citations of 
authorities. I have at last been enabled to carry out, though to a very lim- 
ited extent, the long cherished wish of using some of the best Versions of 
antiquity for exegetical purposes. Hitherto, though I have long and ‘deeply 
felt their importance, I have been unable to use any except the Vulgate and 
the Old Latin. I have now, however, acquired such a rudimentary knowl- 
edge of Syriac, and in a less degree of Gothic, as to be able to state some of 
the interpretations which those very ancient and venerable Versions present. 


VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


The Latin, the Syriac, and the Gothic have been somewhat carefully com- 
pared throughout these Epistles. I know that my deficiency in the two 
latter languages will be plainly apparent, and I seek in no way to disguise it; 
this only I may be permitted to say, in justice to myself, that the Latin inter- 
pretations annexed to the words are not borrowed from current translations, 
but are fairly derived from the best glossaries and lexicons to which I have 
had access. Mistakes I know there must be, but at any rate these mistakes 
are my own. These it is perhaps nearly impossible for a novice to hope to 
escape; as in both the Syriac and Gothic, but more especially the former, 
the lexicographical aids are not at present of a character that can be fully 
relied on. And it is here that, in the application of ancient Versions, the 
greatest caution is required. It is idle and profitless to adduce the interpre- 
‘tation of a Version, especially in single words, unless the usual and current 
meaning of those words is more restricted or defined than in the original. 
Half the mistakes that have occurred in the use of the Peshito, — mistakes 
from which the pages of scholars like De Wette are not wholly free, are 
referable to this head. It is often perfectly apparent that the partial inter- 
pretation supplied by the Latin translation appended to the Version, has 
caused the Version itself to be cited as supporting some restricted gloss of 
the original Greek words, while in reality the words both in the original and 
in the Version are of equal latitude, and perhaps both equally indetermi- 
nate. 

This error I have especially endeavored to avoid; but that I have always 
succeeded is far more than I dare hope. 

In thus breaking ground in the ancient Versions, I would here very ear- 
nestly invite fellow-laborers into the same field. It is not easy to imagine a 
greater service that might be rendered to Scriptural exegesis than if scholars 
would devote themselves to the hearty study of one or more of these Ver- 
sions. I dwell upon the term scholars, for it would be perhaps almost worse 
than useless to accept illustrations from a Version, unless they were also 
associated with a sound and accurate knowledge of the original Greek. 
This applies especially to the Syriac ; and the remark is of some moment; 
for it is now a common opinion among many Oriental scholars, that the lan- 
guage of the New Testament is yet to receive, in a mere grammatical point 
of view, its most complete illustration from Syriac. That there are some 
points of similarity, no student in both languages could fail to observe ; but 
it may be seriously doubted whether one-tenth of the suspected Syriasms of 
the New Testament are not solely referable to the changing and deteriorated 
constructions of later Greek. To accumulate Syriac illustrations, which may 
only serve to obscure or supersede our accurate study of later Greek, is a 
very doubtful, and perhaps profitless, application of labor. ~ 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vit 


Under these, and perhaps a few other, limitations, the study of the ancient 
Versions for exegetical purposes may be very earnestly recommended. The 
amount of labor will not be very formidable, and in some cases we have fair, 
if not good, literary appliances. There seems good reason for not going 
beyond the Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Coptic, and 
the Ethiopic. The remaining Versions are of doubtful vaiue. The Arme- 
nian, though so much extolled, is said to have undergone no less serious than 
unsatisfactory alterations. The Arabic Versions are of very mixed origin ; 
the Slavonic is late; the Georgian has been but little used, and is deemed to 
be of no great value; the Persian and Anglo-Saxon, as far as they extend, 
are not free from suspicion of dependence, the one on the Syriac, the other 
on the Vulgate. For the present, at any rate, the Syriac, Old Latin, Vul- 
gate, Gothic, Coptic, and Ethiopic are all that need demand attention. Most 
of these are rendered perfectly accessible by the labors of recent scholars. 
The Syriac has been often reprinted ; grammars in that language are com- 
mon enough, but the Lexicons are but few and unsatisfactory The Old 
Latin I fear is only accessible by means of the large work of Sabatier, or 
Tischendorf’s expensive edition of the Codex Claromontanus. 

The Gothic, independently of not being at all difficult to the German or 
Anglo-Saxon scholar, has been admirably edited. In addition to the very 
valuable edition of De Gabelentz and Loebe, and the cheap Latin transla- 
tion of that work in Migne’s Patrology, there is the available edition of 
Massmann, to which, as in the case of the larger work of De Gabelentz and 
Loebe, a grammar, and perhaps glossary, is to be added. In addition to the 
lexicon attached to De Gabelentz and Loebe’s edition, we have also the 
Glossary of Schulze (Magdeb. 1848) both, as far as my very limited experi- 
ence extends, works constructed on sound principles of philology. In the 
Coptic there is a cheap and portable edition of the Epistles by Boetticher ; 
and, with the Grammar by Tattam, and the Lexicon by the same author, or 
the Glossary by Peyron, it is not very probable that the student will 
encounter much difficulty. Of the Ethiopic, at present, I] know nothing; an 
early edition of this version will be found in Walton’s Polyglott ; the Latin 
translation has been re-edited by Bode, and the original Version edited in a 
very excellent way by Mr. Platt. An Ethiopic Grammar is announced by 
Dillman, but I should fear that there is no better lexicon than that of Cas- 
tell? The study of this language will be perhaps somewhat advanced by a 
forthcoming pentaglott edition of Jonah (Williams and Norgate), which is to 
include the Ethiopic, and to have glossaries attached. 


1 It is said that Professor Bernstein has for some time been engaged in the preparation 
of a new Syriac Lexicon, but I cannot find out that it has yet appeared. 
2 See, however, preface to the Commentary on the Philippians. etc., p. vii. 


Vill PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


I sincerely trust that these brief notices may tempt some of our Biblical 
scholars to enter upon this important and edifying field of labor. 

The notes to the Translation will be found a little more full (see Introduc- 
tory Notice), and, as the subject of a Revised Translation is now occupying 
considerable attention, a little more explicit on the subject of different ren- 
derings and the details of translation generally. With regard to this very 
important, subject, the revision of our Authorized Version, I would fain here 
make a few observations, as I am particularly anxious that my humble efforts 
in this direction should not be misinterpreted or misunderstood. 

What is the present state of feeling with regard to a revision of our 
present Version? It seems clear that there are now three parties among us. 
The first, those who either from what seem seriously mistaken views of a 
translation of the Holy Scripture, or from sectarian prejudice, are agitating 
for a new Translation. The second, those who are desirous for a revision of: 
the existing Version, but who somewhat differ in respect of the proposed 
alterations, and the principles on which they are to be introduced. The 
third, those who from fear of unsettling the religious belief of weaker breth- 
ren are opposed to alterations of any kind; positive and demonstrable 
error in the representation of the words of Inspiration being in their judg- 
ment less pernicious than change. Of these three parties the first is far the 
smallest in point of numbers, byt the most persistent in activities; the second’ 
class is daily increasing, yet at present greatly inferior both in numbers and 
influence to the third. 

Which of these three parties will prevail? We may fervently trust not: 
the first. Independently of the extreme danger of unsettling the cherished: | 
convictions of thousands, of changing language that has spoken to doubting 
or suffering hearts with accents that have been to them like the voice of God 
himself, — independently of reversing a traditional principle of revision 
that has gained. strength and reception since the days of Tyndale, —inde- 
pendently of sowing.a strife in the Church of which our children and chil- 
dren’s children may reap the bitter fruits,— independently of all these 
momentous considerations, — have we any good reason for thinking that, in a 
mere literary point of view, it would be likely to be an improvement on the 
Old Translation? The almost pitiable attempts under the name of New 
Translations that have appeared in the last twenty years, the somewhat low 
state of Biblical scholarship, the diminished and diminishing vigor of the 
popular language of our day, are facts well calculated to sober our expecta- 
tions and qualify our self-confidence. 

But.are we unreservedly to join the third party? God forbid. If we are 
truly and heartily persuaded that there are errors and inaccuracies in our 
Version, if we know that though by far the best and most faithful translation 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX” 


that the world has ever seen, it still shares the imperfections that belong to 
every human work, however noble and exalted,— if we feel and know that 
these imperfections are no less patent than remediable, then surely it is our 
duty to Him who gave that blessed Word for the guidance of man, through 
evil report and through good report, to labor by gentle counsels to supply 
what is lacking and correct what is amiss, to render what has been blessed 
with great measures of perfection yet more perfect, and to hand it down, 
thus marked with our reverential love and solicitude, as the best and most 
blessed heritage we have to leave to them who shall follow us. 

It is in vain to cheat our own souls with the thought that these errors are 
either insignificant or imaginary. There are errors, there are inaccuracies, 
there are misconceptions, there are obscurities, not indeed so many in num- 
ber or so grave in character as the forward spirits of our day would persuade 
us of, — but there are misrepresentations of the language of the Holy Ghost, 
and that man who, after being in any degree satisfied of this, permits him- 
self to lean to the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or who, 
intellectually unable to test the truth of these allegations, nevertheless per- 
mits himself to denounce or deny them, will, if they be true, most surely at 
the dread day of final account, have to sustain the tremendous charge of 
having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word of God. 

But are we to take no thought of the weaker brethren, whose feelings may 
be lacerated, or whose conscience may be offended, by seeming innovations ? 
That be far from us. We must win them by gentle wisdom; we must work 
conviction in their minds by showing how little, comparatively speaking, 
there is that is absolutely wrong, — how persuasively it may be amended, — 
how we may often recur to the expressions of our older Versions, and from 
those rich stores of language, those treasuries of pure and powerful English, 
may find the very rectification we would fain adopt, the very translation we 
are seeking to embody in words. No revision of our Authorized Version 
can hope to meet with approval or recognition that ignores the labors of 
those wise and venerable men who first enabled our forefathers to read in 
their own tongue of the marvellous works and the manifold wisdom of God. 

Let there be then no false fears about a loving and filial revision of our 
present Version. If done in the spirit and with the circumspection that 
marked the revision of that:predecessor to which it owes its own origin and 
existence, no conscience, however tender, either will be or ought to be 
wounded. Nay, there seems intimation in their very preface that our last 
translators expected that others would do to them as they had done to those 
who had gone before them; and if they could now rise from their graves 
and aid us by their counsels, which side would they take ? Would they stay 
our hands if they saw us seeking to perfect their work ? Would they not 


6 


xX PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


rather join with us, even if it led sometimes to the removal or dereliction of 
the monuments of their own labor, in laying out yet more straightly the way 
of divine Truth ? . 

. How this great work is to be accomplished in detail is not for such a one 
as me to attempt to define. This only I will say, that it is my honest convic- 
tion that for any authoritative revision we are not yet mature, either in Bib- 
lical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this 
country, superior probably to that of any nation in the world, but it has cer- 
tainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament 
(for of the New Testament only am I now speaking) to render any national 
attempt at a revision either hopeful or lastingly profitable. Our best and 
wisest course seems to be this, —to encourage small bands of scholars to 
make independent efforts on separate books, to invite them manfully to face 
and court impartial criticism, and so by their very failures to learn practical 
wisdom, and out of their censors to secure coadjutors, and by their partial 
successes to win over the prejudiced and the gainsaying. If a few such 
attempts were to be made, and they were to meet with encouragement and 
sympathy, such a stimulus would be given to Biblical studies that a very 
few years would elapse before England might be provided with a company 
of wise and cunning craftsmen, into whose hands she might hopefully confide 
her jewel of most precious price. 

A single word only with regard to the translation which accompanies this 
volume. It is exactly similar in principles and construction to the former 
attempts, — attempts made at a time when the question of a revision of the 
Authorized Version had been but little agitated. It lays no presumptuous 
claim to be a sample of what an authoritative revision ought to be. It is 
only the effort of a fallible and erring man, striving honestly and laboriously, 
and on somewhat fixed principles, to present to a few students of his own 
time a version for the closet, a version possibly more accurate than that 
which it professes to amend, yet depending on it and on the older Versions 
for all the life and warmth with which it may be animated or quickened. 

The time and pains I have bestowed on this translation are excessive, and 
yet in the majority of corrections 1 feel how little cause I have for 
satisfaction. . 

- Lastly, with regard to the Epistles themselves now. before. us, it remains 
only to commend them to the reader’s most earnest and devout attention. 
They are distinguished by many peculiarities of language, and many singu- 
larities of expression, and are associated together by an inter-dependence of 
thought that is noticeable and characteristic. They seem all composed at a 
time when the earthly pilgrimage of the great Apostle was drawing to its 
close, and when all the practical wisdom of that noble and loving heart was 


/ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XI 


spread out for the benefit of his own children of the faith, and for the edifi- 
cation of the Church in all ages. On the question of their genuineness, — 
without entering upon investigations which would be foreign to the nature of 
this Commentary, it will not be, perhaps, presumptuous to say that a very 
careful study of their language and turns of expression has left on my mind a 
most fixed and most unalterable conviction that they came from no other hand 
and heart than those of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and that it seems 
hard to understand how accomplished scholars, like De Wette, could so decid- 
edly maintain the contrary hypothesis. This conviction, however, has never 
prevented me from freely and frankly calling attention to all the peculiarities 
in thoughts, words, and expressions which characterize the three Epistles, 
but which, nevertheless, when viewed in connection with the age and expe- 
riences of the sacred writer, and the peculiar nature of the errors he was 
opposing, can cause neither surprise nor difficulty. 

In the present Commentary I am much less indebted to the labors of my 
predecessors than in the two former Epistles. - The commentary of Huther, 
except in the Prolegomena, is a sad falling off, after the able and scholarlike 
expositions of Meyer. De Wette, owing to his doubts about the authorship, 
is often perplexed and unsatisfactory. I have derived benefit from the com- 
mentary of Wiesinger, which, though somewhat prolix, and deficient in 
force and compression, may still be heartily commended to the student. 
The commentary of Leo is mainly sound in scholarship, but not character- 
ized by any great amount of research. The commentary on the second 
Epistle to Timothy was written some years after that on the first, and is a 
noticeable improvement. The commentaries of Mack, Matthies, and Hey- 
denreich (of whom, however, I know very little), are useful in examples and 
illustrations, but perhaps will hardly quite repay the labor of steady perusal. 
Something less may be said of Flatt and Wegscheider. The Danish com- 
mentary of Bp. Moller is brief and sensible, but lays no claim to very crit- 
ical scholarship. I have made far more use of the extremely good commen- 
tary of the distinguished Hellenist, Coray. It is written in modern Greek, 
under the somewhat curious title of SuvékSmos ‘Ieparixds (Vade-mecum Sa- 
crum), and, with the exception of the somewhat singular fact that’ Coray 
seems only to have known the Greek commentators through the medium of 
Suicer, shows very extensive reading, and generally a very sound judgment. 
It is very remarkable that this able commentary, though more than five-and- 
twenty years before the world, should have attracted so little attention. As 
far as my observation extends, it is not referred to by any English or foreign 
commentator, and there are not many expositions on this group of epistles 
that more thoroughly deserve it. 

These, with the Patristic commentators, the able Romanist expositors, 


XII PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


Justiniani, Cornelius a Lapide, and Estius, and a few other writers noticed 
in the preface to the Epistle to the Galatians, are the principal authorities 
which I have used in the present Commentary. 

I now commit this volume to the reader, with the humble prayer to 
Almighty God that He may vouchsafe to bless this effort to expound and illus- 
trate a most vital and most consoling portion of His holy Word; may He 
pity the weakness and forgive the errors of His servant. 


TPIAS, MONA, EAEHZON. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


THE second edition of the Epistles contained in this volume has been thus 
long delayed, that it might not appear before the reader till the interpreta 
tions advanced in the first edition had been fully and maturely considered, 
with reference to the opinions of more recent interpreters. 

The result of the revision is but a very slight amount of change in the 
interpretations formerly proposed,! and, it may not perhaps be improper to 
add, an increasing confidence in a system of interpretation which has thus 
apparently stood the test of the rigorous and lengthened reconsideration to 
which its details have been subjected in the preparation of this edition. 
Though substantial change has been thus slight, it will still be found that 
improvements and slight additions appear on nearly every page, and that the 
edition has some claim to be entitled, revised and enlarged. I may briefly 
specify that the references to ancient Versions are increased, that the gram- 
matical notices? are occasionally expanded, and that the references, espec- 
ially to Scripture, have been nearly all verified anew. Mistakes in this last- 
mentioned portion of the work, due perhaps less to the printer than to the 
wearied eye of the writer, may, I fear, still be found; but I trust it will be at 
wide intervals, and only to such an extent as may admit of easy rectification. 

For further details and comments I may now refer to the Preface to the 
first edition of this Commentary, and to the Preface to the second edition of 
the Commentary on the Ephesians, where the general standard which I have 
latterly attempted to reach is more fully stated. To this standard each suc- 
ceeding volume has naturally tended to approach somewhat more nearly 


1 The only passages, I believe, in which any substantial change of opinion occurs are as 
follows, 1 Tim. vi. 4 (reading; epeis for pts); yi. 10; 2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 2. 

21 may here remark that all the references to Winer’s Grammar have been altered and 
conformed to the lamented author’s 6th and last edition. 


XIV. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


than that which preceded it. What was once almost purely critical and 
grammatical has now confessedly become also exegetical; yet still to no 
further extent than to enable the student to grasp the general connection of 
the holy and inspired Original, as well as to understand the force of isolated 
words and expressions. 

May God’s blessing go with this volume, and mercifully enable it, in these 
our days of doubt and trial, to minister to the Truth as it is in His Blessed 
Son, and, in its humble measure and degree, to set forth the blessed teachings 
and warnings and consolations of the inspired and saving Words of Life. 


CAMBRIDGE, May, 1861. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


aie 


ik gateveied 





INTRODUCTION. 


THE date and general circumstances under which this and the accom- 
panying Epistles were written have long been the subjects of discussion and 
controversy. 

As our opinion on these points must first be stated, it may be said briefly, 
— (a) that when we duly consider that close connection in thought, subject, 
expressions, and style which exists between the First Epistle to Timothy and 
the other two Pastoral Epistles, it seems in the highest degree incredible, that 
they could have been composed at intervals of time widely separated from 
each other. When we further consider (0) the almost insuperable difficulty 
in assigning any period for the composition of this group of Epistles in that 
portion of the Apostle’s life and labors included in the Acts; (c) the equally 
great, or even greater, difficulty in harmonizing the notes of time and place 
in these Epistles with those specified in the Apostle’s journeys as recorded 
by St. Luke; and add to this the important subsidiary arguments derived 
from (d) the peculiar and developed character of the false teachers and false 
teaching alluded to in these Epistles (1 Tim. i. 4 sq.; iv. 1 sq.; vi. 3 sq.; 
2 Tim. ii. 16 sq.; ili. 6 sq.; iv. 4; Titus i. 10 sq.; iii. 9 sq.), and from (e) 
the advanced state of Church organization which they not only imply but 
specify (1 Tim. iii. 1 sq.; v. 3 sq-; Titus i. 5 sq.; ii. 1 sq.), it seems plainly 
impossible to refuse assent to the ancient tradition that St. Paul was twice 
imprisoned at Rome (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 11. 2), and further to the simple, 
reasonable, and highly natural opinion that the First Epistle to Timothy and 
the other two Epistles which stand thus closely associated with it are to be 


assigned to the period between these two imprisonments. 
: 3 


XVIII INTRODUCTION. 


This being premised, we may now express the opinion that the present 
Epistle to Timothy was written by the Apostle towards the close of the 
above-mentioned period (perhaps A. D. 66 or 67), while he was passing 
through Macedonia (ch. i. 3), after a probable journey to Spain (Conybeare 
and Howson, St. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 548, ed. 2) and a return to Ephesus (comp. 
ch. i. 3), at which city he had left Timothy in charge of the local church. 

The object of the Epistle may be clearly inferred from ch. i. 3, 4, and iii. 
14, 15, and may be roughly defined as twofold; first, to exhort Timothy to 
counteract the developing heresies of the time, and secondly, to instruct him 
in all the particulars of his duties as overseer and Bishop of the important 
Church of Ephesus. With this design the contents of the Epistle, which are 
very varied and comprehensive, have been well shown by Dr. Davidson to 
accord in all respects most fully and completely ; see Introduction, Vol. IIL. 
p: 39 sq., where the student will also find a good summary of the contents of 
the Epistle. 

In reference to the genuineness and authenticity of this Epistle, with which 
that of the other Pastoral Epistles is intimately connected, we may briefly 
remark, (a) that there was never any doubt entertained in the ancient 
Church that these Epistles were written by St. Paul (see the testimonies in 
Lardner and Davidson), and (0) that of the objections urged by modern 
scepticism, the only one of any real importance —the peculiarities of 
phrases and expressions (see Huther, Einleitung, p. 50, and the list in 
Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 663 sq. ed. 2) — may be so com- 
pletely removed by a just consideration of the date of the Epistles, the pecu- 
liar nature of the subjects discussed, and the plain, substantial accordance in 
all main points with the Apostle’s general style (admitted even by De 
Wette), that no doubt of the authorship ought now to be entertained by any 
calm and reasonable enquirer: see the very elaborate and able defence of 


Davidson, Introduction, Vol. 111. p. 100 sq. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE TQ TIMOTHY. 


CHA ETS EL. 


Apostolic address and 


salutation. 


AYAOX amoctor0s Xpictod ’Insod, 


Kar éritaynv Oeod cwripos jyav Kat 


1. amédortodAos X, “I1.] ‘an Apostle 
of Jesus Christ;’ an Apostle (in the 
higher and more especial sense, see 
notes on Gal. i. 1, and on Eph. iv. 11), 
who not merely derived his commission 
from, but belonged to Christ (gen. poss.) 
as His minister and servant; see notes 
on Eph. i. 1. The use of this formal 
designation does not seem intended 
merely to support the authority of Tim- 
othy (Heydenr.), or to imply a destina- 
tion of the Epistle for others (Calvin), 
or for the Church at large (compare Bp. 
Moller), but simply to define and main- 
tain the true nature of the document. 
As this epistle may be most naturally 
regarded as an official letter, the Apostle 
appropriately designates himself by his 
solemn and official title: comp. 2 Tim. 
i. 1 sq., and esp. Tit. i. 1 sq., where this 
seems still more apparent. In Philem. 
1, on the other hand, the Apostle, in 
exquisite accordance with the nature 
and subject of that letter, styles himself 
simply d¢cpt0s Xpiorov "Inood; see notes 
in loc. kat émwitayhyv Ocod| 
‘according to the commandment of God ;’ 


not simply equivalent to the customary 
dia SeAjpatos Ocod (1 and 2 Cor.i. 1, 
Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1; comp. 
Moller), but pointing ‘more precisely to 
the immediate antecedents of the Apos- 
tle’s call (the émtayy was the result of 
the 3€Anua), and thus perhaps still more 
serving to enhance the authoritative na- 
ture of his commission: see Tit. i. 3, 
and comp. Rom. xvi. 26, the only other 
passages where the expression occurs. 

cwTHpos nua@v| ‘our Saviour ;’ not 
merely in reference to His preserving 
and sustaining power (compare Zevs 
cwThp, etc.), but to His redeeming love 
in Christ, more distinctly expressed, 
Jude 25, cwrhpt quay oid I. X. (Tisch, 
Lachm.) ; compare 2 Cor. v. 19, and see 
Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 98. 
This designation of God is peculiar to 
the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. ii. 3, iv. 
10, Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, iii. 4), Luke i. 47, 
and Jude 25, but is sufficiently common 
in the LXX, e.g. Psalm. xxiv. 5, Isaiah 
xii. 2, xlv. 15, 21. Its grammatical 
connection with @eds is slightly diversi- 
fied in the N. T.: in 1 Tim.iv. 10 cwthp 


(19) 


20 


Nike! sl iu O04 bal & Cae 


Cuap. I. 2, 


Xpiotov ‘Inood ris €dsridos huov, * TywoSéo ywnoio téxvm év 


TIOTEL. 


"Incobd tod Kupiov pyar. 


is added epexegetically in the relative 
clause, @ep és éorw owthp; in Luke 
i. c., here, and Jude 25, it stands in sim- 
ple, or what is termed parathetic apposi- 
tion (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57.9) to @eds, 
—in the first passage with, in the two 
latter without, the article. In all the 
other places the formula is 6 cwrhp quay 
@eds; the tenor of the sentence (esp. 1 
Tim. ii. 3, 4) probably suggesting the 
prominence of the appellation. Accord- 
ing to Huther, the anarthrous owryp 
jpay is here an adjectival apposition 
appended to @eod, while in Luke-/. c. 
(7@ owr7pi pov), the article marks it as 
a.substantive. This is very doubtful; 
the usage of Attic Greek in similar cases 
seems here correctly maintained ;— if 
the name of the deity have the article, 
the appellation has it also; if the former 
be anarthrous, so usually is the latter; 
see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 8. 10. 

THS €AmL50s Huey] ‘our Hope,’ — 
not merely the object of it (Leo), nor 
the author of it (Flatt), but its very sub- 
stance and foundation ; ‘in eo solo resi- 
det tota salutis nostre materia,’ Calv.: 
see Col. i. 27, Xpictds ev tyiv, h éAms 
vis Sdéns, and comp. Eph. ii. 14, adrds 
yap éoTw % ciphyn jay, where (see 
notes) the abstract subst. must be taken 
in a sense equally full and comprehen- 
sive. The same expression occurs in 
Ignat. Trail. 2. 

2. Tiwodsé@ u.7.A.] ‘to Timothy my 
true child” There is no necessity to 
supply xalpey; for, as Moller. rightly 
obseryes, the following wish forms really 
part of the salutation. It is best, in 
accordance with the punctuation adopted 
in the former Epp., to place a period 
after mlore:; for although in St. Paul’s 
salutations, with the exception of this 
passage, 2 Tim. i. 2, and Tit. i. 4, the 


/ EX, > / > \ n \ \ lal 
Kapis, €deos, elpnvn amo Oeov tatpos Kai Xpiotod 


resumption is made more apparent by 
the insertion of iyiy after xdpis, yet this 
appears to have arisen either from the 
plurality of the persons saluted (e.g. 
Phil., Philem.) or the generic expression 
(7H éxxAnoig 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1, rais 
exxAnotas Gal. i. 2) under which they 
are grouped. Here the resumptive pro- 
noun would be unnecessary. On the’ 
form of salutation see notes on Gal. i. 4 
and Eph. i. 2. év mlare.| ‘in 
(the) faith,’ ‘in the sphere of Christian 
faith ;”? not to be connected merely with 
yvnol» (a grammatically admissible, 
though not natural connection; see 
Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 124), or merely 
with téxvm (compare Alf.), but with the 
compound idea yvnclw téxvw. Every 
part of the appositional member has 
thus its complete significance: 7 ékv@ 
denotes the affectionate (1 Cor. iv. 17, 
TéKvov ayanntdv), 2s well as spiritual 
(Philem. 10) nature of the connection ; 
yvnolw (not ‘dilecto,’ Vulgate, but 


1c [true] Syr.; joined with dvtws 


éy, Plato, Politic. p. 293, and opp. to 
véos, Philo, Somn. 11. 6, Vol. 1. p. 665, 
ed.’ Mang.) specifies the genuineness and 
reality of it (Phil. iv. 3),—7hv axpip7 
kal brép tovs HAAoUs mpds adtdy dpo.d- 
tyta, Chrys.; évy mfore: marks the 
sphere in which such a connection is 
alone felt and realized,— more gener- 
ally, but not less suitably (De W.), ex- 
pressed by xara xownhy mloriv, Tit. i. 4. — 
ér€os] The addition of this substantive 
to the usual form of salutation, xdpis rad 
eiphyn, is peculiar to the Pastoral Epp. 
(Tit. i. 4, Rec., Lachm., is however 
doubtful) ; see 2 John 3, and Jude 2. It 
here probably serves to individualize, 
and to mark the deep and affectionate 
interest of the Apostle in his convert ; 


Cuap. I. 3. 


I exhort thee to abide still 
in Ephesus, and to repress 


aT MO EY. 


21 


° Kaos mapexddecd oe mpocpeivar év 


teachers of other doctrine and would-be teachers of the law: the law is not for the righteous, but for open 
sinners and opponents of sound doctrine, as the spirit of the Gospel shows. 


kal TodTo dmb ToAAs giAooTopyias, 
Chrys. : see notes on Eph. i. 2. 

3. kades] ‘Even as;’ protasis, to 
which there is no expressed apodosis 
(neither at ver. 5, nor ver. 18, Beng.), 
but to which the obvious and natural 
one, obtw kal viv mapaxaA@ (comp. ch. ii. 
1), can easily be supplied; see Winer, 
Gr. § 63. 1, p. 503, where there is a 
good list of the imaginary parentheses in 
St. Paul’s Epp. All other explanations, 
whether by an interpolation before iva 
(‘ita facito,’ Erasm.), or by an arbi- 
trary change of reading (mpoopeivas, — 
Schneckenb. Beitr. p, 183), seem forced 
and unsatisfactory. TapekdAcca| 
‘I besought,’ Auth. Ver.: &kove 7d mpoon- 
vés....00 yap cimev? émétata, ovde 
€xeAcvoa, ovde, Taphvera, GAAG TL; Tmape- 
kdAeod, oe, Chrys.; compare Philem. 8, 
mappnolay Exwy émirdooew — waddAov Ta- 
paxradkd@. The above comment is cer- 
tainly not invalidated by Titus i. 5 
(Huther) ; for there the use of dreratd- 
“nv was probably suggested by the spe- 
cific instructions which follow the general 
order. It may be observed, however, 
that mapakad@ is a word of most frequent 
occurrence in St. Paul’s Epp., being 
used above fifty times, and with varying 
shades of meaning (comp. notes on Eph. 
iv. 1, 1 Thess. v.11), while of the other 
words mentioned by Chrys., one only 
(€merdoow) is used by the Apostle, and 
that only once, Philem. /.c. No undue 
stress, then (‘recommended,’ Peile), 
should be laid in translation. 
mpogpetvat| ‘to abide still, ‘tarry on,’ 
‘ut permaneres,’ Beza; certainly not, in 
an ethical sense, ‘to adhere to a plan’ 
(Paulus),— an interpretation framed 
only to obviate supposed historical diffi- 
culties : see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 302. 
The tense cannot be pressed; as the aor. 
inf. is only used on the principle of the 


‘temporum Td KardAdAndov’ (Schefer, 
Demosth. Vol. 111. p. 432),—a usage 
not always sufficiently borne in mind. 
All that can be said is, that if the pres. 
inf. had been used (comp. Acts xiv. 22), 
the contemplated duration of Timothy’s 
stay at Ephesus would have been more 
especially marked. In the present case 
no inference can be safely drawn. On 
the use of the inf. pres. and aor. after 
eAmiCew, KeAevELY, TapakaAcivy K. T. Avy 
see Winer, Gr. § 44. 7. c, p. 296, comp. 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 748 sq.; and on the 
general distinction between these tenses 
in the inf., consult the good note of 
Stallbaum on Plato, Kuthyd. p. 140. 

mopevdpevos| ‘when I was on my 
way,’ ‘as I was going, Hamm. It is not 
grammatically possible, as De Wette 
seems to imagine, to refer this participle 
to Timothy; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 
287. -Such participial anacolutha as 
those cited by Matth., e. g. Eph. iii. 19, 
iv. 2, Col. iii. 16 (but see Meyer), are 
very dissimilar: there the distance of the 
part. from the words on which it is 
grammatically dependent, and still more 
the obvious prominence of the clause (see 
notes on ph. iii. 18) render such a con- 
struction perfectly intelligible; here no 
such reasons can possibly be urged; see 
exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505. 
There is confessedly great difficulty in 
harmonizing this historical notice with 
those contained in the Acts. Three 
hypotheses have been proposed, to all of 
which there are very grave objections, 
historical and exegetical. These can 
here only be noticed very briefly. (a) 
If the journey here mentioned be that 
related Acts xx. 1, 2° (Theodoret, Hem- 
sen), how is it possible to reconcile. the 
stay of Timothy at Ephesus with the 
fact that .St. Paul despatched him a 
short time only before his own departure, 


22 


1-TIMO THY. 


Cuap. I. 3. 


"Edéce, tropevopevos eis Maxedoviav, tva tapayyeiiyns ticlv pi) 


to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22) and thence 
to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), and that we 
further find him at the latter place (2 
Cor. i. 1) with the Apostle ? 
when St. Paul then left Ephesus, he cer- 
tainly contemplated no speedy return 
(1 Tim. iii. 14); for see Acts xix. 21, 
xx. 3: comp. Huther, Hinleit. p. 13, 14, 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 290 sq. (b) If St. 
Paul be supposed to have sent Timothy 
forward to Ephesus from Achaia (Mat- 
thew), having himself the intention of 
following; can this be reconciled with 
Acts xx. 4, cuvelmero, and with the fact 
that when St. Paul was near Ephesus, 
and might have carried out his intention, 
he &kpwe mapamaAciom thy ~Ep.% see 
Wieseler, p. 294, Wiesinger, Kinleit. p. 
370 sq. (c) Even Wieseler’s opinion 
(Chronol. p. 813, comp. p. 295 sq.) that 
this was an unrecorded journey during 
St. Paul’s 2-3 years’ stay at Ephesus, 
though more reconcilable with historical 
data, seems inconsistent with the charac- 
ter of an Epistle which certainly recog- 
nizes (a) a fully developed form of error 
(contrast the future ciccAetoovra, Acts 
xx. 29), (8) an advanced state of 
Church discipline, not wholly probable 
at this earlier date, and further (7) gives 
instructions to Timothy that seem to 
contemplate his continued residence at 
Ephesus, and an uninterrupted perform- 
ance of his episcopal duties ; see Huther, 
Einleit. p. 17. These objections are 
so grave that we seem justified in re- 
manding this journey (with Theophyl., 
(Ecum., and recently Huther and Wie- 
singer) to some time after the first im- 
prisonment at Rome, and consequently, 
beyond the period included by St. Luke 
in the Acts: see Pearson, Ann. Paul. 
Vol. 1. p. 398, Guerike, Hinleit. § 48. 1, 
p- 396 (ed. 2), Paley, Hor. Paul. ch. x1. 
iva mapayyetaAns| ‘that thou mightest 
command :’ purpose contemplated in the 


Moreover, - 


tarrying of Timothy. The verb here 
used does not apparently mark that it 
was to be done openly (Matth.), but au- 
thoritatively ; mapaxadeiy being the milder, 
mapayyéAAew the stronger word; comp. 
2 Thess. iii. 12. In the Epistle to 
Titus the Cretan character suggests the 
use of still more decided language; e. g. 
Tit. i. 11, émoroutCew, ver. 18, édéyxew 
amorous. ttolyv| ‘certain persons, 
‘quibusdam,’ Vulg.: so ver. 6, iv. 1, v. 
15, 24, vi. 21. We cannot safely deduce 
from this that the number of evil teach- 
ers was small (Huther); the indef. pro- 
noun is more probably slightly contempt- 
uous : ‘le mot tives a quelque chose de 
méprisant,’ Arnaud on Jude 4; compare 
Galian 12: EtTepodtdacka- 
Aety] ‘to be teachers of other doctrine,’ 
™ O,ee 


1a Sea So LieSes [diversas doc- 


trinas Syr.; dis Aeydu., here and ch. vi. 
3. Neither the form nor meaning of 
this word presents any real difficulties. 
In form it is analogous with érepo(vyeiy, 
2 Cor. vi. 14, and is the verbalized 
derivative of érepodiidorados (compare 
kadodiSdonadcs, Tit. ii. 3); not érepodi- 
ddoxew, but érepodidackadciv, “to play 
the érepodid.’? The meaning is equally 
perspicuous if we adhere to the usual 
and correct meaning of érepos (distine- 
tion of kind,—-see notes on Gal. i. 6): 
thus érepod:d. implies ‘teaching,’ — not 
necessarily ‘what is doctrinally false,’ 
nor even so much as ‘what is strange, 
but ‘what is different to, what deviates 
from (‘afvigende,’ Moller) sound doc- 
trine ;’ see ch. vi. 8, where this meaning 
is very clearly confirmed. Just as the 
evayyeAtoy of the Galatians was érepoy 
from its assimilation of Judaical ele- 
ments, so here the didacKaAfa was érépa 
from its commixture with an unedifying 
(ver. 4), vain (ver. 6), and morbid (ver. 
10) theosophy of similarly Jewish orig- 


_~ 


Guar. I. 4. 


TeeITVMwO Ww ay: 


23, 


érepodioackanrely 4 unde trpocéxyew ptSois Kal yeveaoylais amre- 


ination. It will thus be seen that, with 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the other 
Greek commentators, we regard the 
error which St. Paul is here condemn- 
ing, not so much a settled form of her- 
esy, pre-Marcionite or otherwise, as a 
profitless and addititious teaching which, 
arising from Jewish (comp. Tit. i. 14), 
perhaps Cabbalistic, sources, was after- 
wards an affluent of the later and more 
definite Gnosticism; see especially Wies- 
inger, Hinleit. § 4, p. 212, Huther, Hin- 
leit. p. 41, and (thus far) Schleiermacher, 
uber 1 Tim. p. 83 sq. 

4. mpoaéxery] ‘give heed to,’ Auth. 
Ver., a felicitous translation; so Tit. i. 
14. The verb mpocéxev does not imply 
‘fidem adhibere’ (Heinr.), and is cer- 
tainly not synonymous with morevew 
(Krebs, Obs. p. 204), either here or else- 
where (Acts viii. 6, 11, xvi. 14, al.), but 
simply indicates a prior and preparatory 
act, and is, as it were, a mean term 
between akovew and maorevew; compare 
Polyb. Hist. 1v. 84. 6, diaxotcavtes ovdev 
mpocecxov, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v1. 5. 8, 
ovte mpooeixov ote erictevov. The ex- 
amples adduced by Krebs and Raphel 
(Obs. Vol. 11. p. 113) only serve to con- 
firm the strict interpretation. The canon 
of Thom. Mag. ‘mpooéxw oor Tov voor’ 
KdAAwov 2) ‘mpoaexw cot’ pdvov, is abun- 
dantly disproved by his commentators ; 
see p. 749, ed. Bernard. 
kal yevearoy. ameparr.] ‘fables 
and endless genealogies.’ It is very doubt- 
ful whether the popular reference of these 
terms to the spiritual myths and emana- 
tious of Gnosticism (Tertull. Valent. 3, 
de Prescr, 33, Irenzeus, Her. (Pref.), 
Grot., Hamm., and most modern com- 
mentators) can be fairly sustained. The 
only two passages that throw any real 
light on the meaning of these terms are 
Tit. i. 14, iii. 9. In the former of these 
the niSo are defined as "Iovdaixol, in the 


mUSoLs 


latter the -yeveaAoyia: are connected with 
paxoat vourxat; in both cases, then, the 
wopds have there a Jewish reference. / 
The same must hold in the present case; 
for the errors described in the two Epp. 
are palpably too similar to make it at all 
probable that the terms in which they 
are here alluded to have any other than 
a Jewish reference also ; so Chrys., The- 
odoret, al., compare Ignat. Magn. 8; see 
esp. Wiesinger, Hinleit. p. 211 sq., Nean- 
der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 842 (ed. Bohn). 
For a discussion of the various refer- 
ences that have been assigned to -yeveaa. 
in the present passage see the note of De 
Wette translated by Alford in loc. Thus 
then #d%o+ will most probably be, not 
specifically ra mapdonua Sdypara (Chry- 
sost.), nor a supplementary épunvela, a 
devtépwois (Theod), but generally, Rab- 
binical fables and fabrications whether 
in history or doctrine. Again yevea- 
Aoylat will be ‘genealogies’ in the 
proper sense, with which, however, these 
wilder speculations were very probably 
combined, and to which an allegorical 
interpretation may have been regularly ' 
assigned; comp. Dihne, Stud. u. Krit. 
for 1833, p. 1008. It is curious that 
Polybius uses’ both terms in similarly 
close connection, Hist. rx. 2. 1. 
a&mepavtors| ‘endless,’ ‘interminable,’ 
‘quibus finis non est,’ Syr.: medloy azé- 
payrov, Pind. Nem. v111. 38; so 3 Mace. 
ii. 9, awép. yav. It does not seem neces- 
sary to adopt either the ethical (areAclw- 
tov Hesych., Chrysost. 2). or logical _ 
(Adyou amrépayro Opp. to Adyot mepayTikol, 
Diog. Laert. viz. 78) meaning of this 
word. The genealogies were vague, 
rambling, interminable ; it was an a&e- 
Tpos Kat aarép. dinynots (Philo, de Abrah. 
§ 3, Vol. 11. p. 4, ed. Mangey) that had: 
no natural or necessary conclusion; com- 
pare Polyb. Hist. 1. 57. 3, where the 
simple sense appears similarly main- 


24 


I*TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. I..5. 


pavrois, altwes Gythioes Tapéyovow maddov %) oikovowiay Oeod 


\ > ' 5 
THV EV TLOTEL 


tained. airives ‘inasmuch as they,’ 
“seeing they ;’ explanatory use of dotts, 
see notes on Gal. iv. 24. Cnt h- 
oes] ‘questions;’ either subjectively, 
‘disputings,’ Acts xv. 2 (Tisch.); or, 
more probably, in an objective sense, 
‘questions of controversy,’ ‘enquiries,’ 
essentially opposed to faith (Chrysost., 
Theod.), and of which Zpeis and pdxat 
are the natural and specified results; see 
ch. ‘vi. 4, 2 Tim: ii: 23, Tit. tii. 9. 
oikovoplav @e€od] ‘God's dispensa- 
tion,’ not ‘edifying,’ Raphel, Wolf, —a 
translation which oixovoula cannot bear ; 
see Polyb. Hist. 1v. 65. 11 (cited by 
Raphel), where the proper translation 
is ‘exsecutio instituti;’ and compare 
Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v. The exact 
meaning of the term is, however, doubt- 
ful. If oirovouia be explained subjec- 
tively, ‘the stewardship,’ scil. ‘the exer- 
cising of the stewardship’ (Conyb. and 
Hows.), ‘the discharge of the functions 
of an otkovdéuos @eod’ ‘actum non sta- 
tum,’ Beng; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17, iv. 1), 
the use of mapéxew must be zeugmatic, 
i.e. involve two different meanings 
(‘ preebere, promovere’), unless (nrfoes 
be also explained actively,in which case 
mapexew will have a single meaning, but 
. the very questionable one, ‘ promovere.’ 
If, however, oixovouta @eod be taken 
objectively and passively (Chrys.), the 
‘dispensation of God’ (gen. of the orv- 
gin or author ; compare notes on 1 Thess. 
i. 6), 2.e. ‘the scheme of salvation de- 
signed by God, and proclaimed by His 
Apostles, with only a remote reference 
to the ofxos @cod (see notes on Eph. i. 
10), the meaning of (mr. and vikoy. will 
be more logically symmetrical, and zapé- 
xew can retain its simple sense ‘ pre- 
bere:’ the fables and genealogies sup- 
plied questions of a controversial nature, 
but not the essence and principles of the 


\ \ f “ 4 > \ > if 9) 
TO 5€ TéXOS THS Tapayyedias éoTW ayaTn &K 


divine dispensation. Thy év 
mioret] ‘which is in faith:’ further 
definition of the nature of the oikovoula 
by a specification of the ‘sphere of its 
action, —‘ faith, not a questioning spirit,’ 
—thus making the contrast with ¢yrho. 
more clear and emphatic. The easier 
readings oikodoulay (found only in D®) 
or oixodoufvy (D1; Iren. ap. Epiph.), 
though appy. supported by several Vy. 
(edificationem, Vulg., Clarom., Goth., 
Syr., al.), cannot possibly be sustained 
against the authority of all the uncial 
MSS., and is probably only due to erro- 
neous transcription, 6 and v being con- 
fused. How can Bloomf. (ed..9) adduce 
the Alex. MS. in favor of oixodoulay, 
and (except from a Lat. transl.) assert 
that Chrys. and Theod. were not aware 
of any other reading? ‘These are grave 
errors. 

5. Td 5& réAos xu. 7.A.] ‘ But (not 
‘now,’ Auth. Ver.. Conyb.) the end (aim) 
of the commandment, etc.;’ a contrasted 
statement of the purpose and aim of 
sound practical teaching. There ought 
not to be here any marks of paren- 
thesis (Giriesb., Lachm.), as the verse 
does not commence a new train of 
thought, but stands in simple antithet- 
ical relations (5¢) to ver. 4, forming at 
the same time an easy and natural tran- 
sition to ver. 6 sq., where the errors of 
the false teachers are more particularly 
specified. TéAos is thus not the cumrAf- 
pwua (Chrys.; comp. Rom. xiii. 10), the 
‘palmarium, precipuum’ (Schoettg.), or 
the ‘sum’ (‘die Hauptsumme,’ Luther), 
—meanings scarcely lexically tenable, 
—but the ‘aim’ (Beza, Hamm. 2), as 
in the expression noticed by Chrys., 
TéXos iarpiris byeta; see Rom. x. 4, and 
Chrysost. in loc.,— where however the 
meaning does not seem equally certain. 
The distinction of Cassian (cited by 


Cmap. I. 5. 


LIMO Tay . 


25 


a Si \ 5 , 2 SF \ / 5) ! 
KaSapas Kap taS KAL DVVELONTEWS AYAINS KAL TTLOTEWS avuTOKpli- 


Justiniani) between oxdédmos, ‘id quod 
artifices spectare solent,’ and _ ‘éAos, 
‘quod expetitur ab arte,’ is not fully 
satisfactory. q wTapayyedta is 
not the ‘lex Mosaica’ (‘pars pro toto,’ 
Caly.), nor even the ‘lex Evangelica’ 
(Corn..a Lap.), both of which meanings 
are more inclusive than the context 
seems to require, or the usage of mapary- 
yeAla in the N. T. (ch, i. 18, Acts v. 28, 
xvi. 24, 1 Thess. iv. 2) will admit of. 
On the other hand, to refer mapayy. 
simply to the preceding mapayyelans 
(Theophyl., éay mapayyéAns mh érepodi- 
SacKadeiv, TOUTO KaTOpsaoeis, Thy AyaTny) 
seems too narrow and exclusive. That 
it was suggested by the verb just pre- 
ceding is not improbable; that it has 
however a further reference to doctrine 
in a preceptive form generally, — ‘ prac- 
tical teaching’ (De W.), seems required 
by the context, and confirmed by the 
recurrence of the verb in this Ep. ; com- 
pare ch. iv. 11, v. 7, vi. 13, 17. 

aydmn| ‘love;’ the (nrhoes engendered 
paxas, 2 Tim. ii. 23. The love here 
mentioned is clearly love to men (4 ék 
diadecews Ka) TOU ovvaAryeEly cuvioTapevn, 
Theophyl.) not love to God and men 
(Matth.): ‘quum de g¢aritate fit mentio 
in Scriptura, sepius ad secundum mem- 
brum restringitur,’ Calv.: see esp. Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 242. €k Kada- 
pas kapdias]| ‘out of, emanating from, 
a pure heart;’ é« with its usual and 
proper force (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 328) 
pointing to and marking the inward seat 
of the aydrn: comp. Luke x. 27, 1 Pet. 
i, 22. The xapdia, properly the (imag- 
inary) seat of the puxf (Olsh. Opusc. p. 
155), appears very commonly used in 
Scripture (like the Hebrew 225) to de- 
note the Wux7 in its active aspects (‘ qua- 
tenus sentit et agitur et movetur duce 
spiritu vel carne,’ Olsh. 2b.), and may be 
regarded as the centre both of the feel- 


ings and emotions (John xvi. 6, Rom, 
ix. 2, al.) and of the thoughts and imag- 
inations (Matth. ix. 4, xv. 19, 1 Cor. iv. 
5, al.), though in the latter case more 
usually with the associated ideas of 
activity and practical application; see 
Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 111. 24. 38, p. 94 sq., 
and esp. the good collection of exx. in 
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. rv. 12, p. 204. 

cvveldnots ayasn here and ver. 19 
(compare 1 Pet. ili. 16; kad} Heb. xiii. 
18; xaSapa 1 Tim. iii. 9,2 Tim. i. 3) is 
connected with wiotts as the true princi- 
ple on which its existence depends. 
Faith, — faith dvuméxpitos, though last 
in the enumeration, is really first in 
point of origin. It renders the heart 
pure (Acts xy. 9), and in so doing ren- 
ders the formerly evil conscience éyasn. 
Thus considered, cuvetinots ay. would 
seem to be, not the antecedent of the 
Kavapa Kkapdia (Hamm.), and certainly 
not identical with it (Corn. a Lap., com- 
pare Caly.), but its consequent ; ‘ consci- 
entia bona nihil aliud est quam scientia 
et testimonium animz affirmantis se 
pure et sancte yivere,’ Menoch. ap. Pol. 
Syn.; compare Pearson, Creed, Art. v11. 
Vol. 1. p. 847 (ed. Burton). On, the 
exact meaning of ovvelSnors see Sander- 
son, de Obl. Conse. 1.4 sq., Vol. 1v. p. 3 
(ed. Jacobs.) ; on its nature and power, 
Butler, Serm. 2,3, and on its threefold 
character (an exponent of moral law, a 
judge, and a sentiment) the very clear 
discussion of M‘Cosh, Divine Gov. m1. 
1. 4, p. 291 sq. It must be remembered, 
however, that in Scripture these more 
exact definitions are frequently wholly 
inapplicable; the ovveidnois is viewed, 
not in its abstract nature, but in its prac_ 
tical manifestations ; see Harless, Lthik, 
§ 9. B, p. 35. 
‘unfeigned,’ ‘undissembled ;’ an epithet 
of micris here and 2 Tim. i. 5; of 


wydrn, Rom. xii. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 6; of 
4 


&vuToKptitov| 


26 


Ly DMO; E EY : 


Cuap. I. 6, 73 


tov, § oy TwWes aoToxyncayTes eLeTpaTncaY Eis pataLodoyiar, 


7 Sérovtes elvar vopwodidasKadoL, “2 voodvTEs pyTEe A AéyouowW 


iradeadia, 1 Pet. i. 22; of 7 dvwder 
copia, James ili. 17, marking the absence 
of everything émlrAaoroy and bmokex- 
pyuevoy (Chrys.). It was a faith not 
merely in mask and semblance, but in 
truth and reality : ‘notandum epitheton ; 
quo significat fallacem esse ejus profes- 
sionem ubi non apparet bona conscientia,’ 
Calvy. All these epithets have their 
especial force as hinting at the exactly 
opposite in the false teachers; they were 
diepSapuévor Tov vovv (ch. vi. 5), Kexav- 
Tnpiacwévo. THY auveldnotv (ch. iv. 2), 
GOdKimor mepl THy miotw (2 Tim. iii. 8). 
It may be remarked that the common 
order of subst. and epith. (see Gersdorf, 
Beitriige, p. 334 sq.) is here reversed in 
Kadvapa Kapd.; so 2 Tim. ii. 22, Heb. x. 
22, comp. Rom. ii. 5; on the other hand 
contrast Luke viii. 15, and esp. Psalm 
1. (li.) 10, napdtay naSapav ktloov ev euot. 
This is possibly not accidental; the 
heart is usually so sadly the reverse, so 
often a kapdia movnpa amorias, Heb. iil. 
12, that the Apostle, perhaps designedly, 
gives the epithet a slightly distinctive 
prominence; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, p. 
564 (ed. 6). 

6 @yv tives x. 7.A.] The remark 
of Schleiermacher (ier 1 Tim. p. 161), 
that this verse evinces an incapacity in 
the writer to return from a digression, 
cannot be substantiated. There is no 
digression; ver. 5 has an antithetical 
relation to ver. 4; it states what the 
true aim of the mapayyeAla was, and 
thus forms a natural transition to ver. 6, 
which specifies, in the case of the false 
teachers, the general result of having 
missed it: ver 7 supplies some additional 
characteristics. *Qy refers only to the 
three preceding genitives, not to aydmn 
also (De W.?%): dydan, the principle 
emanating from them, forms the true aim, 
and stands in contrast with paraoa., the 


state consequent on missing them, and 
the result of false aim; comp. Wiesing. 
in loc. aoroxnoavres| ‘having 
missed their aim at.’ This word only 
occurs again in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 
18, in both cases with mepi: in 1ts mean- 
ing it is opposed to evoroxeiv (Kypke ; 
comp. TéAos, ver. 4), and far from being 
ill chosen (Schleierm. p. 90), conveys 
more suitably than auaprovtes, the fact 
that these teachers had once been in the 
right direction, but had not kept its 
KaA@s elmev, GoTOX.: TExNS yap Jet Hore 
evdgéea BddAew ka wy e&w Tov oxKdrou, 
Chrys.; see exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
II. p. 348. éEetpadmnoar| 
‘swerved, turned themselves from ;’ e&€kAu- 
vay, Hesych.: see ch. vy. 15, vi. 20, 2 Tim. 
iv. 4, Heb. xii. 13. "Extpémeodar is 
properly ‘a via deflectere’ (Alberti, Obs. 
p. 392), the éx referring to the original 
direction from which they swerved ; 
comp. Joseph. Ant. x111. 10, 5, ris 6500 
éxtpemduevov, and simply, ib. Ant. viII. 
10. 2, «is eketpamn  mpdtess. 
‘ Aversi sunt’ (Beng.) is thus a more 
exact transl. than ‘conversi- sunt’ 
(Vulg.). MatTatoroyiar| 
‘vaniloquium,’ or, in more classical Lat. 
(Livy, xxx1v. 24, Tac. Ann, 111. 49), 
‘vaniloquentia, Beza. This was an 
especial characteristic of the false teach- 
ers (comp. Tit. i. 10, iii. 9), and is more 
exactly defined in the following verse. 

7. S€Aovres] ‘desiring; they were 
not really so, This and the following 
expressions, vouodiddoKaAol, 1} voovvTes 
kK. T. A., seem distinctly to show, — and 
this much Schleiermacher (p. 80 sq.) 
has not failed to perceive, — that Juda- 
ism proper (Leo, compare Theodoret) 
cannot be the error here assailed. The 
vduos is certainly the Mosaic law, but 
at the same time it was clearly used by 
the false teachers on grounds essentially 


adiKous 


@uir. 1.8! 


pnre tept tivev SiaB_eBavodvrat. 


differing from those taken up by the 
Judaists, and in a way which betrayed 
their thorough ignorance of its princi- 
ples; see Huther zm loc. The assertion 
of Baur (Pastoralbriefe, p. 15), that An- 
tinomians (Marcionites, etc.) are here 
referred to, is opposed to the plain mean- 
ing of the words, and the obvious cur- 
rent of the passage ; comp. ver. 8 sq. 
uh voovvres] ‘yet understanding not, 
though they understand not ;’ the participle 
having a slight antithetical or perhaps 
_even concessive force (Donalds. Gr. § 
621: the total want of all qualifications 
on the part of these teachers is contrasted 
with their aims and assumptions. The 
correct translation of participles will 
always be modified by the context, as it 
is from this alone that. we can infer 
which of its jive possible uses (temporal, 
causal, modal, concessive, conditional) 
mainly prevails in the passage before us - 
for exx. in the New Test. see Winer, 
Gr. § 45. 2, p. 307 (where, however, the 
uses of the part. are not well-defined), 
and for exx. in classical Greek, the 
more satisfactory lists of  Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 56.10 sq. On the negative 
with the part. comp. notes on ch. vi. 4. 
“ente & «.7.2r.] The negation bifur- 
cates; the objects to which it applies, 
and with respect to which the ignorance 
of the false teachers extends, are stated 
in two clauses introduced by the adjunc- 
tive negatives uyte—phre; compare 
Matth. v. 34, James v. 12, and sce 
Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, p. 433. Their ig- 
norance was thus complete, it extended 
alike to the assertions they made and 
the subjects on which they made them. 
mept tivwy S1aBeB.| ‘whereof they 
affirm, Auth, Ver.‘—scil. ‘the subject 
about which (Syr., Vulg.) they make 
their asseverations;’ not ‘what they 
maintain,’ Luther, Bretschn., compare 
De Wette. The compound verb diaBe- 


Pent OVE HY. 


oT 


8 oldapev 5é OTL KANOS 6 VOMLOS 


Baovosa: does not here necessarily 


imply ‘contention,’ Syr. tiem dso 
[contendentes], but, as in Tit. iii. 8, is 
simply equivalent to Aéyew pera BeBatcd- 
cews (‘stiurjan,’ Goth.: comp. Pollux, 
Onomast V. 152, Sieyyvepat, diaBeB., 
diioxupiCoua), mep) referring to the 
object about which the action of the 
verb takes place (Winer, Gr. § 47. e, 
p. 333); compare Polyb. Hist. x11. 12. 
6, SiopiCduevos rad SiaBeBaovpevos trep? 
Thas then & and ep) tivwy 
refer to different objects (opp. to De 
W.); the former referring to the sub- 
jective assertions, the latter to the 
objects which called them forth: so 
Huther, Weisinger. The union of the 
relative and interrogative in parallel 
clauses involves no difficulty ; see Winer, 
Gr. § 25. 1, p. 152, Bernhardy, Synt. 
x11I. 11. p 443, and the copious list of 
exx. cited by Stallbaum on Plato, Crit. 
p. 48 A. 

8. ofdauev Se] ‘Now we know;’ 


ToUTwy. 


@oave): €deyey wmodoynucvoy Tod70 Kat 
d7jAdv éott, Chrys. (on Rom. vii. 14): 
compare Rom. ii. 2, ili. 19, vii. 14 
(Zachm. marg.}, viii. 28. The ¢, though 
certainly not = wey Moller (an unfor- 
tunate comment), is still not directly 
oppositive, but rather petaBaticdy (in a 
word, not ‘at’ but ‘autem’ Hand, Tur- 
sell. Vol. 1. p. 562, compare p. 425), and 
the whole clause involves a species of 
concession: the false teachers made use 
of the law; so far well; their error lay 
in their improper use of it; ob TG vduw 
Meupouat, GAAQ Tois KaKols ddacKdAos 
Tov vouov, Theodoret. Kados| 
‘good,’ morally; not &péAuos, Theodo- 
ret, De W. The object of the apostle 
seems to be a full admission, not merely 
of the usefulness, but the positive excel- 
lence of the law ; compare Rom. vii. 12) 
14, 16. 6 vdémos) ‘the law;’ 


28 


1 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. I. 9. 


, ral - an ON fal nf / / 

édy TIS AUT@® vopiplws yxpHtat, 9% eidws TodTO, OTe SiKalw vomos 
a , \ at \ o 

ov KeiTal, dvomols S€ Kal avUTTOTaKTOLS, acEBETWW Kai aGpwapTwdois, 


surely not ‘law in the abstract’ (Peile), 
but, as the preceding expression vouod:- 
unmistakeably implies, ‘the 
__iMosuic law,’ the law which the false 
teachers improperly used and applied 
to Christianity. 71s] ‘any one,’ 
2, é@., a8 the context seems here to sug- 
gest, any teacher; ‘non de auditore 
legis [compare Chrys.| sed de doctore 
loquitur,’ Beng., —and, after him, most 
recent interpreters. voutpws] 
‘lawfully,’ i. e. agreeably to the design 
of the law; an obvious instance of that 
effective paronomasia (repetition of a 
similar or similar-sounding word) which 
we so often observe in St. Paul’s Epp. ; 
see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 68.1, p. 560 
sq. The legitimate use of the law has 
been very differently defined, e. g. dray 
[ris] exmAnpot abrdv 80 epywy, Chrys. 1, 
Theophyl. ; 7d mapaméurew mpbs tov 
Xpiordv, Chrys. 2, Theodoret, Theoph. ; 
bray €k TOAATS avToy puAaTTns THs Tept- 
ovalas, Chrys. 3, etc. The context, 
however, seems clearly to limit this le- 
gitimage use, not to a use consistent with 
its nature or spirit in the abstract (Mack, 
comp. Justiniani), but with the admis- 
sion of the particular principle dér: 
dixaiw ov Keira avduois b€ Kal ayumoT. 
k. tT. A. The false teachers, on the con- 
trary, assumed that it was designed for 
the righteous man, urged their inter- 
pretations of it as necessarary appendices 
to the Gospel; so De W., Weissing., 
al., and, similarly, Alford. 


9. eidws TotToO| 


ddoKaAor 


‘knowing this,’ 
‘being aware of (‘mit dem Bewusst- 
sein, Wegsch.) this great truth and 
principle ;’ secondary and _ participial 
predication, referring, not to the subject 
of ofdauey (‘per enallagen numeri,’ 
Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 288), but to the 
foregoing tis, and specifying the view 
which must be. taken of the law by the 


teacher who desires to rightly use it. 
vdmos Kkettat| ‘the law is not 
ordamed. The translation of Peile, ‘no 
law is enacted,’ is fairly defensible (see 
Middleton, Greck Art. p. 385 sq. and 
comp. IIT. 3. 5, p. 46, ed. Rose), and 
not without plausibility ; the absence of 
the article being regarded as designed 
to imply that yéuos is taken indefinitely, 
and that the sentiment is perfectly gen- 
eral, —e. g. 6 undev adin@v oddevds Setrat 
youov, Antiph. ap. Stob. Flori. 1x. 16 
[cited by Mack, al.). As, however, it 
is now certain that vduos, like many 
similar words both in the N. T. and 
elsewhere (see the full list in Winer, 
Gr. §- 19. 1, p. -109 sq.), even when 
anarthrous, can and commonly does sig- 
nify ‘the Mosaic law’ (compare Alford 
on Rom. ii. 12), and as this sense is both 
suitable in the present passage, as de- 
fining the true functions of the Mosaic 
law, and is also coincident with St. 
Paul’s general view of its relation to 
the Christian (comp. Rom. vi. 14, Gal. 
iii. 19, al.) we retain with Chrys. and 
the Greek expositors the definite refer- 
ence of véuos: comp. Iren. Her. 1v. 3: 
so De W., Huther, Wiesing., al. 

Stxal@| ‘a righteous man.’ The exact 
meaning of S5ikaos has been somewhat 
differently estimated : it would seem not 
so much, on the one hand, as 6 dicatw- 
Sels, with a formal reference to diac. 
ex mlorews, nor yet, on the other, so 
little as 6 KaropSwKws thy apethy, The- 
ophyl., but rather, as the context seems 
to require and imply, ‘justus per sancti- 
ficationem,’ Croc. (compare De W.), he 
who (in the language of Hooker, Serm. 
11. 7) ‘has his measure of fruit in ho- 
liness ;? compare Waterl. Justif: Vol. 
TEs te Kkett as ‘is enacted,’ 
‘posita est,’ Vulg., ‘ist satith,’ Goth. 
No special or peculiar force (‘ onus illud 


> 
Ov 


Cup. I. 9. 1 


TIMOTHY. 


29 


avocios Kai BeBrrows, TaTpOA@AaLS Kal. UNTPOAwALS, avdpoddvoxs, 


maledictionis,’ Pisc.; ‘ consilium et des- 
tinatio,’ Kiittn. ap. Peile) is here to 
be assigned to «efoSa, it being only 
used in its proper and classical sense of 
‘enactment,’ etc., of laws ; comp. (even 
passively, Jelf, Gir. § 359. 2) Xenoph. 
Mem. 1v. 4. 22, robs id tay Seay 
Keevous vouous, and the numerous exx. 
in Wetstein, Kypke, and the phrase- 
ological annotators. The origin of the 
phrase seems due to the idea, not of 
mere local position (‘in publico exponi 
ibique jacere,’ Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
349), but of ‘fixity,’ etc. (comp. Rost. 
u. Palm, Zer. s. v. 12, Vol..1. 1694) 
which is involved in the use of ketoSat. 
avdmors BE K.7.A.] ‘but for lawless 
and unruly.’ The reference of dyvéuots 
and ayvmor. to violation of divine and 
human laws respectively (Leo) is in- 
genious, but doubtful. Both imply 
opposition to law; the former perhaps, 
as the derivation seems to convey, a 
more passive disregard of it; the latter, 
as its deriv. also suggests (imotdoceaSat 
= sponte submittere, Tittm. Synon. 11. 
p. 3) a more active violation of it, aris- 
ing from a refractory will; comp. Tit. i. 
10, where ayuméraxro: stands in near 
connection with évtiAéyovTes. 
aceBéocitv kal amapr.| ‘ ungodly 
and sinful.’ These epithets are also 
connected in 1 Pet. iv. 18, Prov. xi. 31. 
This second bracket points to want of 
reverence to God; the third to want of 
inner purity and holiness; the fourth to 
‘want of even the commonest human 
feeling. The list is closed by an enu- 
meration of special vices. av O- 
otots| ‘unholy ;’ only here and 2 Tim. 
iii. 2. As Soros. and éo.d7ys seem, in 
all the passages where they are used by 
St. Paul, to convey the notion of a 
“holy purity’ (comp. notes on Eph. iv. 
24, and Harless in loc.), the same idea 
is probably involyed in the negative. 


The aoeBys is unholy through his lack 
of reverence; the aydows through his 
lack of tanner purity. The use in 
classical authors is appy. somewhat dif- 
ferent ; it seems there rather to mark 
‘impiety’ (Plato, Euthyphr. p. 9 v, 3 dv 
mavres of Jeol wicHow, avdoiov), the vio- 
lation of fas in contradistinction to jus, 
whether in its highest sense in relation 
to the gods, e. g. Schol. Eurip. Hee. 
dows, 6 wept Ta Seta Sikatos, or its lower 
sense in relation to parents and kindred, 
e.g. Xen. Cyrop. vi1t. 8, 27, dvoowwrTépous 
mep) cuyyevers: see Tittmann, Synon. 1. 
p. 25. Hence the frequent combination 
of avdéowos and &bduxos, e. g. Plato, Gorg. 
p. 505 B, Legy. vi. p. 777 B, Theext. p. 176 


E, Republ. 11.,p. 363 dD. ™ aT p0- 
m oO 
Ag@atrs| ‘smiters of father,’ eda! 


> « FO 
omaotl [qui percutiunt patres] 
Syr.; not ‘murderers of fathers,’ Auth. 
Ver. Both the derivation (dAodw, com- 
pare Aristoph. Ran. 149) and the similar 
use of the word in good authors (e. g. 
Demosth. Timocr. 732, Aristoph. Nub. 
1327, compared with 1331, and esp. 
Lysias, Theomn. 116. 8) will certainly 
warrant this milder translation ; comp. 
Suidas, marpadoias, marpotimtns: Kat 
matpakgas 6 avtés, and Poll. Onomast. 
111. 13, who even extends it to of 7ep 
Tous yoveis ekauaptdvoytes : sim. Hesych., 
TaTpar.: 6 Toy TaTEepa atid wy, TUTTwY, 
} xrelvwv. It seems, too, more consis- 
tent with the context, as the crime of 
parricide or matricide would naturally 
be comparatively rare, and almost (even 
ina pagan’s idea, compare Cicero, pro 
Rosc. c. 25) out of the special contem- 
plation of any law. Against the crime 
of the text the Mosaic law had made a 
provision, Exodus xxi. 15 (obs. there is 
no addition ma, as in ver. 12), comp. 
Lev, xx. 9. The following avdpopdvors 


30 


1 DMD Osh Y . 


Cuap. I. 10. 


10 / b i > } 5 al - b , 
TrOpVOLs, apo EVOKOLTALS, AV Paro toTaLs, vpevo TAL, ETT LOpPKOLS, 


supplies no argument against this transl. 
(De W.); St. Paul is obviously follow- 
ing the order of the commandments. 
The usual Attic form is marpadolas ; 
Thom. Mag. p. 695 (ed. Bern.), Alberti, 
Obs. p. 394. 

10. dvy3pamodiatais| ‘ men-steal- 
ers:’ ‘plagiariis’ (Cicero, Quint. Frat. 
1. 2. 2), i.e. ‘qui vel fraude vel aperta 
vi homines suffurantur ut pro manci- 
piis vendant,’’ Vorst ap. Pol. Synon. ; 
compare Poll. Onomast. 111. 78, avdpar. 
6 tov éAevSepoy KatadovAotmevos 7) Toy 
GAAST poy oiKeT HY Srayouevos (ed. Bekk.); 
a repulsive and exaggerated violation of 
the eighth commandment, as apoevoro- 
reiv is similarly of the seventh: they are 
grouped with dpameral and porxoi, Polyb. 
Hist. x11. 9. 2,10. 6; compare Rein, 

Yriminalrecht, p. 386 sq.. The penalty 
of death is attached to this crime, Exo- 
dus xxi. 16, Deut. xxiv. 7; so appy. in 
some Pagan codes, Xenoph. Laced. tv. 
36; see Sturz., Ler. Xenoph. s. v. 
émidpKo.s| ‘perjured persons,’ Auth. 
Ver.: ‘émdpkor sunt et ii qui quod 
juraverunt non faciunt (Xenoph. Agesil. 
1.12, comp. 11) et ii qui quod falsum 
esse norunt jurato affirmant.’ Raphel. 
Perjury is specially mentioned Lev. xix. 
aie ef T1 x. 7. A. is not for & 
+t (Mack), but is a mere emphatic and 
inclusive form of expression. It implies 
that all forms of sinfulness had not been 
specifically mentioned, but that all are 
designed to be included ; Raphael (Obs. 
Vol. 11. p. 562) very appositely cites 
Polyb. Hist. p, 983 [xv. 18. 5], oixlas 
kal xdpav, kal wéreis kal ef Te erepdv eore 
Mascaviocov. Th bytatvovan 
didack.] ‘the sound (healthful —not 
healthgiving, Mosh.) doctrine:’ Karas 
elme, TH bya. didackadrla, éxewa yap 
mayra mdsn wuxis jv diepSapucvns. 
Chrys.; comp. Plutarch, de Liber. Educ. 
§ 9, THs adiapsdpov kal dypravovons Tat- 


delas, ib. § 7, byialvovtos Kal TeTaypevov 
Biov. The formula is nearly identical 
in meaning with 7 Kady didacKkaAla, ch. 
iv. 6, and 7 kat evoéBerav didack., ch. 
vi. 3, and stands in clear and suggestive 
contrast to the sickly (ch. vi. 4) and 
morbid (2 Tim. ii. 17) teaching of Jew- 
ish gnosis. The present part. seems to 
convey the idea of present, existing 
healthiness, which was to be maintained 
and not depraved; comp. Waierl. Trin- 
ity, Vol. 111. p. 400. The expres- 
sions byiaivovca SidacKaArta, 2 Tim. iv. 
3, Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, and byaivovres Adyot, 
1 Tim. vi. 3, 2 Tim. i. 13 (compare Tit. 
ii. 8), are peculiar to the Pastoral Epis- 
tles, and have frequently been urged as 
‘un-Pauline:’ to this the answer of 
Weisinger (on Tit. i. 9) seems fair and 
satisfactory, — viz. that it is idle to lay 
stress upon such an usage, unless at the 
same time corresponding expressions 
can be produced out of St. Paul’s other 
Epp., which might suitably take the 
place of the present: see in answer to 
Schleiermacher, Planck, Bemerkungen, 
Gott. 1808, Beckhaus, Specimen Obss. 
Ling. 1810. The majority of these 
objections are really fundamentally un- 
critical. If in these Epp. the Apostle 
is characterizing a different form of 
error frrom any which he had previously 
described, and if the expressions he has 
made use of admirably and felicitously 
depict it, why we are to regard them 
with suspicion because they do not occur 
in other Epp. where really dissimilar 
errors are described? That there is a 
certain difference in the language of 
these Epp. we freely admit, yet still it is 
not one whit more than is natural to ex- 
pect from the form of errors described 
(see Huther, Hinleit p. 52), the date of 
the composition (see notes on ver. 3), and, 
possibly, the age and experiences of the 
inspired author; compare Guerike, Einr- 


Cuapr. I. 11, 12. 


al el Te & 7 Uylatvovcn SidacKaNia avTik 
Kab el Te ETepov TH UY on OL Q LKELTAL, 


7 een © T EY. 


31 


\ \ 
u Kata TO 


> t a J la / n a 3 i > / 
evayyédov THs SoEns ToD wakapiov Oeod, 0 érictedSnv eyo. 


I thank Him who entrusted 
that Gospel to me, and who 


12 \ s yi a 3 , / 
Kai Xapw EXD TH évovvapacavTt bE 


_was merciful to me in my ignorance and unbelief: to Him be all honor and glory. 


leit. § 48. 2, p. 402 (ed. 2). It is to be 
regretted that so able a writer as Reuss 
should still feel difficulties about the 
authorship of this Ep.; see his Gesch. 
des N. T. § 90, p. 76. 

ll. kata To ebvayyéator| ‘ac- 
cording to the Gospel;’ specification of 
that with which all the foregoing is in 
accordance. There is some little diffi- 
culty in the connection. Three con- 
structions have been proposed: the 
clause has been connected (a) with ry 
by. didacx., Beng., Leo, Peile, al.; (d) 
with ayrixerrar, Mack, Matth., compare 
Justin. 2; (c) with the whole foregoing 
sentence, ver. 9 sq., De W., Huther, 
Wiesing. Of these (a) seems clearly 
grammatically untenable: for the article 
[inserted in D1; Bas.] cannot be dis- 
pensed with, as Theopyl., in his gloss, 
TH ovon Kata Td evaryyéA., tacitly admits. 
Again (b) is exegetically unsatisfactory, 
as the sentence would thus be tautolo- 
gous, the ty. d:dacx. being obviously the 
import of the evayyéA., it not even 
synonomous with it; comp. ch. vi. 1, 3. 
Thus then (¢) is alone tenable: the 
Apostle substantiates his positions about 
the law and its application by a refer- 
ence to the Gospel. His present asser- 
tions were coincident with its teaching 
and principles: so, very similarly, Rom. 
ii. 16; see Meyer, zn loc., and on kard, 
comp. notes on Eph i. 5. Tis 
36&ns] is not a mere genitive of quality 
(compare Winer, Gr. § 34. 2. b, p. 211), 
and only equivalent to évdotos, Beza. 
Auth. Ver., al., but. is the gen. of the 
contents; see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, 
p- 161, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 126, 
and notes on Eph. i. 18, and compare 
2 Cor. iv. 4. The glory of God, whether 
as evinced in the sufferings of Christ 


(Chrys) or in the riches of His sover- 
eign grace, (D. W.), is the zmport, that 
which is contained in, and revealed by 
the Gospel, ‘quod .,Dei majestatem et 
immensam gloriam [Rom. ix. 23, Eph. 
iii. 16] explicet,’ Justiniani, 2. The gen. 
Tod Seov is consequently not the gen. 
originis (Thy wéAdovoay Sdkay emaryyedAAc- 
tot, Theodoret, comp. also Chrys.), but 
the simple possessive genitive, the glory 
which essentially belongs to and is im- 
manent in God. fakaptou| 
This epithet (only here and ch. vi. 15), 
when thus applied to God, seems de- 
signed still more to exalt the glory of 
the Gospel dispensation. Makdpios, in- 
deed, was God, not only on account 
of His own immutable and essential 
perfections (ds 
Theophyl. ix 1 Tim. vi. 15), but on 
account of the riches of His mercy in 
this dispensation to man; comp. Greg. 
Nyss. in Psalm. i. 1, Vol. 1. p. 258 (ed. 
Morell), 


guoe ou 


éoT avTouakapisrns, 


TovTo pdvoy éoT) pakdpioy TH 
may TO wéeTEXOY pakdploy ylyve- 
toa: compare also Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 
Ti p..280- d émicotetddany| 
‘with which I was entrusted :’ a common 
construction in St. Paul’s Epp., espe- 
cially in reference to this subject; see 
ty Corvise li Gall le el hessh ites 
Tit.i.3. As the context is simply refer- 
ring to the past, not (as in Gal ii. 7) 
also to the present fact of the apostle’s 
commission, the aor. is perfectly suita- 
ble; see notes on Gal. ii. 7. 

12.xdpiv €xa| ‘And I give thanks ;’ 
appended paragraph (not however, as 
Alf., only with a comma after éyw) ex- 
pressive of the Apostle’s profound 
thankfulness for God’s mercy toward 
him, as implied in the 6 éreoreddny of 
the preceding verse. It has been urged 


82 1 TIMOTHY. Cuapr. I. 12. 


Xpiot@ "Incod 7& Kupio jyav, te Tietov pe Hyjocato, Séwevos 


* 


12. nat xdpw exw] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with D KL; great majority of mss. ; 
Clarom., Goth., Syr. (both), al.; Dam., Gicum. (text); Lucif., Ambrst. (Rec., 
Griesb., Sholz, Wiesing.). The connecting xa is omitted in AFG; about 10 
mss.; Boern., Vulg., Copt., Aith. (both), Arm.; Chrys., Theodoret, al.; Pel., 
Vig., Bed. (Mill, Prolegom, p. txxxiv., Lachm., Huther, De Wette (e sil.), Tisch. 
ed. 1, A/f). The external authorities are thus nearly equally balanced. Internal 
arguments are also nearly in equipoise :— if, on the one hand, the important criti- 
eal principle, ‘ proclivi lectioni prastat ardua’ (compare Tregelles, Printed Text of 
N. T., p. 221), seems here to find a legitimate application, the insertion of kal, on 
the other hand, is distinctly in accordance with St. Paul’s use of that particle. As 
it is possible that the omission of kai may have arisen from a mistaken idea of the 
connection of éy& with xdpw éxw, and as the preponderance of external evidence 
is perhaps slightly in favor of the insertion, we retain, though not with perfect con- 


fidence, the reading of Tischendorf. 


by Schleierm. (p. 163 sq.) in his argu- 
ments against the genuineness of this 
Ep., that there is here a total want of 
connection. Were it even so, no argu- 
ment could be fairly founded on it, for 
what is more noticeable than St. Paul’s 
tendency to digression whenever any- 
thing connected with his mission and 
the mercy of God towards him comes 
before his thoughts? comp. 1 Cor. xv. 
9 sq., Eph. iii. 8. There is, however, 
here scarcely any digression ; the Apos- 
tle pauses on the weighty words 6 émo- 
revSny éyé (what a contrast to the ig- 
norance and uncertainty of the false 
teachers, ver. 7!), to express with deep 
humility (compare Chrys.) his thankful- 
ness; with this thankfulness he inter- 
weayes, ver. 13 sq., a demonstration, 
founded on his own experiences of the 
transforming grace of the Gospel, and 
the forgiveness. (not the legal punish- 
ment) of sin. Thus, without seeking 
to pursue the subject in the form of a 
studied contrast between the law and 
the Gospel (he was not now writing 
against direct Judaizers) or of a declar- 
ation how the transgressors of the law 
were to attain righteousness (see Baum- 
garten, Pastoralbr. p. 224 sq.), he more 
than implies it all in the history of his 


own case. In a word, the law was for 
the condemnation of sinners; the Gospel 
of Jesus Christ was for the saving of 
sinners and the ministration of forgive- 
ness: verily it was an evayyéAwv Tijs 
ddéns TOU pakapiov @cod; comp. Huther 
in loc. TG évovvapdoarTi| 
‘to him who strengthened me within,’ se. 
for the discharge of my commission, for 
bearing the AdBoupoy (Chrys.) of Christ. 
The expressive word évdvyayu., with the 
exception of Acts ix. 22, is only found 
in the N. T. in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. 
iv. 20, Eph. vi. 10, Phil. iv. 18, 2 Tim. 
ii. 1, iv. 17) and Heb. xi. 34: compare 
notes on Eph. vi. 10. There does not 
seem any reference to the dvvdwers which 
attested the apostleship (Macknight), 
nor specially to mere bravery in con- 
fronting dangers (compare Chrys.), but 
generally to spiritual Svvaus, for the 
functions of his apostleship. 

miatdv| ‘faithful, ‘trusty,’ compare 
1 Cor. vii. 25.- Eadie, on Eph. 1. 1, p. 
+, advocates the participial translation 
‘believing’? (compare Goth. ‘ galaubjan- 
dan’): this, however, seems here clearly 
untenable; the addition of the words eis 
diakoviay show that the word is used in 
its ordinary ethical, not theological sense. 
Sémevos eis S1ax.] ‘appointing me, 


_ * 


Cuap. I. 13. 


Sy 
els Svaxoviav, ™ 


Hcsdb ge ih(O) Jb ing c 33 


TO TpoTepoy dvta Prdadnmov Kai SubKTnv 


\ if / F, > A > / e/ ’ an > te > > 4 
kat uBpioTnv' adda HrENSHV, OTL ayvoaV éToinTAa ev aTLoTia, 


or, in that he appointed me, for the minis- 
try;” not ‘postquam,’ Grot., but ‘dum 
posuit,’ ete. Beng. The act, rd Séoda 
eis dvax., furnished proof and evidence 
bri muorby Hyhoaro: Tas yap by e8erd pe 
el wh emitnderdtyTa evpey ev euot; The- 
ophyl.; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, p. 311. 
Schleiermacher takes exception at this 
expression; why may we not adduce 
1 Thess. v. 9, @ero jas eis opynv 4 


13. dy7a] The participle seems here 


to involve a concessive meaning, ‘ though 
I was,’ ‘cum tamen essem,’ Justiniani, 
— certainly not, ‘who was,’ Alf., as this 
gives it a predicative character. On the 
use of participles in concessive sentences, 
see Donaldson, Gr. § 621, and compare 
notes on ver. 7. BrAdoonpor] 
‘blasphemer ;’? in the full and usually 
received meaning of the word, as it was 
specially against the name of our Lord 
(Acts xxvi. 9,11) that St. Paul both 


‘spoke and acted. The verb BAacdnuety 


(i. e. Baraipnucty, Pott, Htym. Forsch. 
Vol. 1. p. 47, Vol. 11. p. 49) taken per 
se is nearly equivalent in meaning to 
Aoidope (e.g. Murtyr. Polyc. 9, roido- 
pysov toy Xpirrdv, compared with the 
martyr’s answer, w@s Sbvayar BAacdyuy- 
oa; compare Clem. Alex. Pedag. 1. 8, 
p- 137, ed. Potter), but when in connec- 
tion with God’s name it naturally has 
the more .special and frightful meaning 
of ‘blasphemy,’ 7 eis @edv #Bpis, Suidas : 
see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 696 
Sq. 516k nv] ‘persecutor;’ od 


| povoy éBAacphuovy GAAG Kal Tos LAAOUS 


Siwkav Brachnucty Hvdyra¢ov, Gicum. : 
see Acts xxii, 4, Gal. i. 18, 28. 
bBpiot xv] ‘doer of outrage,’ Conyb and 


‘Hows. ; only here and Rom. i. 30; é8pic- 


Ths [perhaps from brép, Donald. Cratyl. 
§ 335, with verbal root, i (ire), Pott, 
Etym, Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 144] is one 


who displays his insolence not in words 


5 


merely, but in deeds of violence and 
outrage: see Trench, Synon. § xxix. 
“Paulus nequitiam quibusdam veluti 
gradibus amplificat. Primus gradus 
est maledicere, ideo se vocat blasphe- 
mum; secundus insectari, ideo se appel- 
lat persecutorem; et quia potest insec- 
tatio citra vim consistere, addit tertio se 
fuisse oppressorem,’ Justiniani. The 
translation of the Vulgate ‘contumeli- 
osus,’ is scarcely critically exact, as, 
although ‘contumelia’ [perhaps from 
‘contumeo,’ Voss, Ltymol. s. v., comp. 
Pott, Vol. 1. p. 51] is frequently ap- 
plied to deeds (e.g. Cesar, Bell. Gall., 
quamvis vim et contumeliam [fluctuum] 
perferre), ‘contumeliosus,’ seems moré 
commonly applied to words. The dis- 
tinction between tmephpavos (thoughts), 
ddalév (words), and bBpiorhs (deeds), 
is investigated in Trench, /. c.; see also 
Tittm. Synon. 1 74. GAAG AEH 
nv] ‘still, notwithstanding, I obtained 
mercy.” °AAA& has here its full and 
proper seclusive (‘aliud jam hoe esse, de 
quo sumus dicturi,’? Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
11. p. 2), and thence commonly adyersa- 
tive force: God’s merey and St. Pauls’ 
want of it are put in sharpest contrast. 
In the following words the apostle clearly 
does not seek simply to excuse himself 
(De W.), but to illustrate the merciful 
procedure of divine grace. . His igno- 
rance did not give him any claim on 
God’s 2Acos, but merely put him within 
the pale of its operation. év 
amiotia (‘being yet in unbelief,’ Peile) 
then further defines the ground of his 
&yvoiw: his ignorance was due to his 
amortia. How far that amoria was ex- 
cusable, is, as‘ Huther observes, left un- 
noticed: it is only implied that the 
éyvow which resulted from it was such 
as did not leave him wholly évawoAdyn- 
Tos; od yap pSdvw BarrAducvos emoucuouy, 


54 


Pa EO? PY - 


Cuap. I. 15515. 


Tie t \ 4 a in 
UmepeTrAcovacey O€ 7) Yapis TOD Kuplou hav peta mlorews Kab 


ayarns Ths év Xpiotd “Inood. 


GAN brep Tod vduov dASEev aywrviCdsuevos, 
Theodoret: comp. Acts iii. 17, Rom. x. 
2, and see esp. the excellent sermon of 
Waterland, Part 11..Vol. v. p. 731. 

14. bwmepewAcdvacer| ‘wus (not 


‘hath been,’ Peile) exceeding abundant,’ 
vy 


Du [magna fuit] Syr.; compare 
Rom. y. 20, imepemepiocevoey 7% xapts, 
2 Thess. i. 3, bmrepavidvee 7 lors. 
There is not here any comparative force 
in drepewAcévacey, whether in relation to 
the apostle’s former sin and unbelief 
(Mack), or to the eos which he had 
experienced (émepéBn Kad Toy Zrcov 7h 
dpa, Chrys.), as verbs compounded with 
jmwep are used by St. Paul in a super. 
rather than a compar. sense; see Fritz. 
Rom. Vol. 1. p. 350; the apostle thus only 
explains more fully how, and in what mea- 
sure, he obtained mercy. This, it may be 
observed, he introduces, not by an explan- 
atory kal, or aconfirmatory yap, but by dé; 
a gentle adversative force being suggested 
by the last words, ev amortig: ‘yes, un- 
believing [ was, but God’s grace was not 
on that account given in scanty mea- 
sure:’ see especially Klotz, Devar. p. 
363 sq, and comp. the remarks in notes 
on Gal. iii. 8, 11, and al. pass. The 
word émep7ma. is excessively rare ; it has 
at present only been found in the Psalt. 
Salom. v. 19, and Herma Fragmenta, 
ap. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. Book v. 1, Vol. v. 
p. 12 (ed. 1712), where it is used with a 
semi-local reference, — od xywpel ékeivo 
Td ayyos, GAN breprAcovdce. On St. 
Paul’s frequent use of verbs com- 
pounded with tmép, see notes on Eph. 
iii. 20. meta mlaot. kal ay. 
Faith and love are ‘ the concommitants of 
the grace of our Lord Jesus ;’ 
proper force of werd, see notes on Eph. 
vi 23, and compare ib. iv. 2. Leo has 
rightly felt and expressed this use of the 


on which 


15 \ € t ‘ U, 
TLOTOS O NOYOS Kal Taons 


prep.,—‘verbis wera x. 7. A. indicatur 
mio. k. ay. quasi comites fuisse illius 
xapitos.’ Of the two substantives the 
first mioris stands in obvious antithesis 
to év amoria, ver. 13 (on its more inclu- 
sive sense as also implying éAzts, see 
Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 241), while 
aydrn, which here seems clearly to im- 
ply Christian love, love to man (Justin.) 
as well as to God, suggests a contrast to 
his former cruelty and hatred; ‘ dilectio 
in Christo opponitur szevitize quam exer- 
cuerat adversus fideles, Caly. 

THs é@v Xp.| ‘which is in Christ,’ — 
not ‘per Christum,’ Justin. (compare 
Chrys., 76, ev, dia eorw), but in Him, 
as its true sphere and element. Faith 
and Jove have their only true centre in 
Jesus Christ; it is only when we are in 
union with Him that we can share in 
and be endowed with those graces. 
This proper meaning of ey has fre- 
quently been vindicated in these com- 
mentaries ; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, on 
Eph. i. 2, al. On the insertion of the 
article, see notes on ch. iii. 13. 

15. reatos 6 Adyos| ‘Faithful is 
the saying,’ ‘triggv [trusty, sure] thata 
vaurd,’ Goth.; morés — dvr) tod diped- 
dns Kal GAndhs, Theod. This ‘ gravis- 
sima prefandi formula’ (Beng.), is 
found only in the Pastoral Epp.; ch. 
ii 1, iv.99;/2 Timi ly ate 
comp. the somewhat similar forms, oéroz 
of Adyot GAnSwol Kal morot, Rev. xxi. 5, 
xxii. 6, and dAndiwds 6 Adyos, 1 Kings 
x. 6, 2 Chron. ix. 5. This is one of the 


many hints that may tend to confirm us- 


in the opinion that the three Epp. were 
written about the same time; compare 
Guerike, Hinleit. § 48.1, p. 400 (ed. 2). 
ndons amodoxHs| ‘all (i.e. every 
kind of) acceptation,’ Auth, Ver. ; an ex- 
cellent translation. ’Azodox7, ‘exceptio 
studii et favoris plena,’ Schweigh. Lez. 


Cuap. I. 16. 


PE PMO Hey. 


35 


arrodoyis d&tos, btu Xpictos "Inoods HAXev eis Tov Kocpov dpap- 


n e nee 6 > Dupe y 4 
TWAOUS THTAL, WV TPWTOS Elpl eyo" 


Polyb. s. v. (comp. amodextés, ch. ii. 3, 
vy. 4), is used very frequently and in very 
similar constructions by later Greek wri- 
ters; e.g. aod. uéwos, Philo, de Pram. § 
23, Vol. 1. p. 565, ib. de Profug. § 2, 
Vol. 11. p. 410, al. In Polybius (where 
it very frequently occurs), it is occasion- 
ally found in union with miotis, e. g. 
Hist. 1. 43. 4, v1. 2. 13,—‘ etiam fides 
species est acceptionis, Beng.; see the 
collections of Elsner and the phraseolog. 
annotators, by all of whom the word is 
abundantly illustrated. On this use of 
mas with abstract nouns, commonly de- 
noting extension (‘omnium totius animi 
facultatum,’ Beng.) rather than cntension, 
see notes on Eph. i. 8. 

hASev eis thy kdacpmoyr] ‘came into 
the world:’ see John xvi. 28, and (ac- 
cording to the most probable construc- 
tion) ib.i. 9. In these passages xécpos 
is appy. used in its physical or perhaps 
rather (see John iii. 16 sq.) collective 
sense; comp. Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 
20, p. 228, and notes on Gal. iv. 3. The 
allusion they involve to the mpotmapéts of 
Christ is clear and unmistakable ; comp. 
Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 141 (ed. Bur- 
ton). 
“of whom I am chief;? ‘antecedens om- 
nes non tempore sed magnitudine,’ Au- 
gust. in Psalm lxx. Justiniani and 
others, following a hint of Ambrose, en- 
deavor to qualify these words, by refer- 
ring the relative, not to Guaptwaovds ab- 
solutely, but ‘iis tantum qui ex Judaismo 
conyersi erant in fidem;’ dy se. cwCoué- 
vov, Wegscheid.: similarly Mack, and, 
what is more singular, Waterland, Serm. 
xxx. Vol. v. p. 729. As however the 
words Xpiorbs ASev... must 
clearly be taken in their widest extent,— 
‘non solos illos Judzos sed et omnes 
omnino homines et peccatores venit sal- 
vos facere,’ Corn. a Lap.,— any interpre- 


@v wpOtds cis] 


. THOAL 


1 


© ara Sie TOUTO 7rENSV) 


tation which would limit either auapre- 
Aovs or its relative seems exegetically 
untenable. Equally unsuccessful is any 
grammatical argument deduced from the 
anarthrous mpa@ros, scil. ‘einer der Vor- 
nehmsten.’ Flatt; for comp. Matth. x. 2 
(De Weite also cites ib. xxii. 38, but the 
reading is doubtful, and Middleton, Art., 
vi. 3, p. 100 (ed.Rose). Thus to explain 
away the force of this expression is seri- 
ously to miss the strong current of feel- 
ing with which, even in terms of seeming 
hyperbole (adrdv trepBaive: tis Tame.vo- 
gpoovvns Spov, Theod.) the apostle ever 
alludes to his conversion, and his state 
preceding it; see notes on Eph. iii. 8. 
eis] Not jv; ‘cave existimes modes- 
tix causa apostolum mentitum esse. Ve- 
ram enim non minus quam humilem 
confessionem edere voluit, atque ex inti- 
mo cordis sensu depromptam,’ Calvin. 
Sce the excellent sermons on this text 
by Hammond, Serm. xxx. xxxI. p. 632 
sq. (A. C. Libr,), and compare August. 
Serm. CLXXIV. CLxxv. Vol. v. p. 939 
sq. (ed. Migne), Frank, Serm. vi11. Vol. 
I. p. 108 sq. (A. C. L.). 

16. &Aad] ‘ Howbeit, Auth. Ver., 
not resumptive (‘ respicit ad ver. 13,’ 
Heinr.), but, as in ver. 13, seclusive and 
antithetical, marking the contrast be- 
tween the apostle’s own judgment on 
himself and the merey which God was 
pleased to show him: Guaptwads (ev) 
eu, GAAG HAenSnv. Beza has here judi- 
ciously changed ‘sed,’ Vulgate, into 
‘verum;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
3, and compare some remarks of Water- 
land on this particle, Serm. v. (Moyer’s 
Lect.), Vol. 11. p. 108. ~ 
51a todTo| ‘on this account,’ ‘ for this 
end;’ pointing to, and directing more 
especial attention to the tva. 
ev émot| ‘in me;’ not equiv. to dc 
euov (Theod.), but with the usual and 


36 


1TIMOTHY. 


Crar. yt 


LZ bd ’ ‘ / oF / \ ’ la) \ Pat. / y 
iva év euor TpeT@ evdelEntar Xpiatos 'Incovs THv dmacay waKpo- 


full force of the prep.; the apostle was 
to be as it were the substratum of the ac- 
tion: comp. Exod. ix. 16, and see exx. 
in Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, and notes 
on Gal. i. 24. Tp ore ‘the 
chief, not ‘ first,’ Auth. Ver.: ‘alludit 
ad id quod nuper dixerat se primum esse 
inter peccatores,’ Calyv. 

evicitnra| ‘might show forth ;’ in- 
tensive, or, as it has been termed, dynamic 
middle; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 432, 2. 
bb, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8, and notes 
on Eph. ii. 7, where this word and its 
uses are noticed and investigated. 

thy &racav pakp.| ‘the whole of His 
long-suffering ;’ i.e. ‘the fulness of long- 
suffering,’ Peile; od« épn, Wa evd. év 
euol Thy wakp. GAAG, Thy Tacay pakp. ws 
dy ei deve’ maAAov euov em BAW ovK 
Zxet makpoSvuijoa, Chrys. The reading 
dmacav (Lachm., Tisch.) is not quite cer- 
tain: the preponderance of uncial au- 
thority [AFG opp.to DKL] is perhaps 
slightly in its favor, but it may be re- 
marked that the form éras is only found 
once more in St. Paul’s Epp., Eph. vi. 
13 (Gal. iii. 28 Lachm. is very doubtful), 
while the more common form occurs 
about 420 times. St. Luke ‘uses amas 
far more (23 times certain) than any 
other of the sacred writers. On. the less 
usual position of the article, see notes on 
Gal. v.14, and comp. Gersdorf, Beitrage, 
p. 881, who has, however, omitted this 
instance and Acts xx. 18: comp. Green, 
Gram. p. 194. We need not 
here modify the meaning of pakpod. : 
‘Deo tribuitur parpods. quia poenas pec- 
catis debitas differt propter gloriam su- 
am, et ut detur peccatoribus resipiscendi 
locus,’ Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. 
p-. 293. The distinction of Theophyl. 
(on Gal. v. 22) between pakpoSuuta (7d 
oXOAR emitiIeva THY mpoohkovoay dixnv) 
and mpadrns (1d apievar tavtdmact) cited 
by Suicer; s. v.,,and Trench, Synon. p. 


199, may perhaps be substantiated by 
comparing this passage with Tit. ii. 2. 

wpds brotimwotv K.7-A.| ‘to ex- 
hibit a pattern for them, etc.,’ mpds émo- 


Sek, Cocum. 2: smorde., (Aw Cn 
ox 


[ostensio, exemplum, 2 Pet. ii. 6] Syr., 
is a dls Aeydu-; here, and in a somewhat 
modified sense, 2 Tim. i.13. St. Paul’s 
more usual expression is tUos (Rom. vy. 
14, vi. 17, 1 Cor. ;x.:6,/11, Phil} ay Ay 
al), but for this dor. is perhaps here 
substituted, as itis not so much the mere 
passive example (tumoy) as the active 
display of it on the part of God (‘ad 
exprimendum exemplar,’ Erasm.) which 
the apostle wishes to specify. The usual 
explanation that the apostle himself was 
to be the dmdderyya (2 Pet. ii. 6), the 
standing type and representative, the 
‘all-embracing example’ (Moller) of 
those who were hereafter to believe on 
Christ (‘si eredis, ut Paulus; salvabere 
ut Paulus,’ Beng.), is scarcely satisfac- 
tory. It was not so much the apostle as 
the paxpos. shown to him that was the 
object of the brordm.; comp. Wiesing: 
in loc. On the technical meaning [ad- 
umbratio et institutio brevis) see the 
notes of Fabricius on Sext. Empir. p. 1, 
and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11 p. 
1398. The gen. ta@y weAAdytwy (‘in 
respect of,’ ‘ pertaining to,’ see Donalds. 
Gr. § 453) may be more specifically de- 
fined as the genitive of the point of view 
(Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129), or per- 
haps, more correctly, as an extended ap- 
plication of the possessive gen.; the b:o- 
timwois was designed in reference to 
them, to be, as it were, their property ; 
so 2 Pet. ii. 6; comp. Soph. Gd. Col. 
355, and see Scheuerl. Synt. § 13. 2, p. 
112 sq., Matth. Gram. § 348. 1 (not 2, 
where Soph. /. ce. is misinterpreted, see 
Wunder in loc.).. If the dative had been. 
used, the idea of the ‘ convenience,’ ‘ ben- 


Cuap. I... 1-7. 


PPM OW ¥ ; 


37 


U 7 e 7 aA , A 
Supiay, Tpos UTOTUT@GW TOY pEdAOYTOY TiCTEvELY eT a’Te Eis 


ay 17 
Sw7v aiwviov. 


efit’ of the parties concerned, would have 
come more prominently into notice : con- 
trast Ecclus. xliv. 16 with 2 Pet. J. c: 
The explanation of Bretsch., ‘ut (hoc 
meo exemplo) adumbraret conversionem 
futuram gentium,’ is grammatically de- 
fensible but not exegetically satisfactory. 
miaTevery em. avt@| ‘to believe on 
Him.’ In this construction, which only 
occurs elsewhere in Luke xxiv. 25 (omit- 
ted by Huther) and (in one and the same 
citation from the LXX) Rom. ix. 83, x: 
11, 1 Peter ii. 6 (Matthew xxvii. 42 is 
doubtful), Christ is represented as the 
basis, foundation, on which faith rests ; 
ém with dat. marking ‘ absolute superpo- 
sition’ (Donalds. G'r. § 483), and thence 
the-accessory notion of ‘ dependence on ;’ 
see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 24, p. 250, Krii- 
ger, Sprachl. § 68. 41, p. 541. If we 
adopt the usual reading and explanation 
in Mark i. 15 (comp. John iii. 15 [ Tésch., 
Lachm. marg.], Gal. iii. 26, Jerem. xii. 
6, Ignat. Philad. 8), it may be observed 
that moredw has five constructions in 
the N. T., (a) with simple dative; (bd) 
with év; (c) with eis; (d) with ém and 
dat.; (e) with ém and accus. Of these 
it seems clear that the prepositional con- 
structions have a fuller and more special 
force than the simple dative (see Winer, 
Gr. § 81. 2. obs., p. 241), and also that 
they all involve different shades of mean- 
ing. There may be no great difference 
in a dogmatical point of view (compare 
Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 8, ed. Burt.), 
still the grammatical distinctions seem 
clearly marked. In a word, the exercise 
of faith is contemplated under different 


aspects: (a) expresses only the simple. 


act; (b) involves also the idea of union 
with; (c) union with, appy. of a fuller 


and more mystical nature (comp. notes- 


on Gal. iii. 27), with probably some ac- 
cessory idea of moral motion, mental 


\ lal o ’ 
T@ 0€ Baoihel THY aiwvev, adSdptw dopdtw 


direction toward; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 
a. p. 473; (d) repose, reliance on; (e) 
mental direction with a view to it; Fritz. 
Rom. iv..5, Vol. 1. p. 217, comp. Don- 
alds. Gr. § 483. Of the four latter 
formule, it may be remarked in couclu- 
sion, that (>) and (d) are of rare occur- 
rence ; (c) only (John iii. 15 is doubtful) 
is used by St. John and St. Peter, by 
the former very frequently; and about 
equally with (e) by St. Luke, and rather 
more than equally by St. Paul: a notice 
of these constructions will be found in 
Reuss,*Théol. Chrét. rv. 14, p. 229; com- 
pare also Tholuck, Beitrége, p. 94 sq. 
eis (whv aidvioy| ‘unto eternal life; 
object to which the exercise of wiotis ém 
av7@ was directed. It is singular that 
Bengel should have paused to notice that 
this clause can be joined with irotdrwouy : 
such a construction has nothing to re- 
commend it. 

17. Bactret TOY aidvwy| ‘to the 


king of the ages, IsoS3 foSsoS 


[regi seeculorum] Syriac,—a noticeable 
title, that must not be diluted into ‘the 
king eternal’ of Luth. and the Auth. 
Ver., even if Hebraistic usage (comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 34. b, p. 211) may render 
such a dilution grammatically admissi- 
ble: comp. Heb.-i. 2, xi. 3. The term 
ai@ves seems to denote, not ‘the worlds’ 
in the usual concrete meaning of the” 
term (Chrys., and appy. Theod., The- 
oph:), but, in accordance with the more 
usual temporal meaning of aidy in the 
N. T., ‘the ages, the temporal periods 
whose sum and aggregation (aidves 7av 
aiéyvwy) adumbrate the conception of 
eternity ; see notes on Eph. i. 21. The 
Bactrels tay aidvwy, will thus be ‘the 
sovereign dispenser and disposer of the 
ages of the world:’ see Psalm exlvi. 
(exlv.) 13, 4 BactAcla cov BactAcla mév- 


33 


Per Ori rOy 


Cuap. I. 18, 


/ fol sh \ 60 b} \ tA an a. 7 > + 
pov Oeo, Tun Kat ofa els Tovs alavas TOV alwovev apn. 


I charge thee, son Timothy, 
to fight the good fight of 


; 
18 Tavtny Thy Tapayyeay TapaTiseuai cot, 


faith, and not to make shipwreck of it, as some have done. 


Tay Tov aidvev, Kal 7 Seomotela cou év 
mdon yevea, kat yeved and comp. Ex. xv. 
18; so Hamm. 1, comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 
2.4,p.315. Any reference to the Gnostic 
zeons (Hamm. 2) is untenable, and com- 
pletely out of place in this sublime dox- 
ology. The title does not occur again 
in the N. T., but is found in the O. T., 
Tobit xiii. 6, 10; comp. Ecclus. xxxvi. 
17. 6 Sebs Tay aidvwr. 

&pSdprT | ‘incorruptible ;’ nearly equi- 
valent to 6 wdvos €xwy adavactay, ch. vi. 
16. This epithet is only found in union 
with @eds, here and Rom. i. 23; comp. 
Wisdom xii. 1. Both this and the two 
following epithets must be connected 
with @ed, not BaoiAe? (Auth. Version, 
Conyb., al.), which is scarcely grammat- 
ically tenable. Huther urges against 
this the omission of the article before the 
epithet; this, however, frequently takes 
place in the case of a title in apposition ; 
see Middleton, Article, p. 387 (ed. Rose). 
” see Col. i. 15, and 
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16; v@ udv@ oKiarypagod- 


Gopate| ‘invisible ; 


mevos kal TodTO Atay Guvdpas Kal peTplws, 
Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxvi1I. 11 (a noble 
passage), p. 615 p (ed. Morell). 

udvw eG] ‘only God ;’ comp. ch. vi. 
15, 6 waxdpios Kad pdvos duvdorns. It is 
not of serious importance whether, with 
Pseud.-Ambrose in loc., we refer this ap- 
pellation to the First Person (‘particula 
péve extraneas tantum personas, non 
autem divinas excludit,’ Just., comp. 
Basil, Hunom. Book rv. ad fin.) or, with 
Theodoret and Greg. Naz. (Orat.xxxvt. 
8, p. 586 B, ed. Morell), to the three Per- 
sons of the blessed Trinity. The former 
seems most probable ; comp. John xvii. 
3. The reading of the text, a ‘mag- 
nifica lectio,’ as Bengel truly calls it, is 
supported by such preponderating au- 


thority [AD'FG opp. to KL.] that it 
seems difficult to imagine how Leo can 
still defend the interpolated oogé. 

Timy Kat 5déa| ‘honor and glory ;’ a 
combination (in doxology) only found 
here and (with the art.) in Rey. v. 13, 
comp, iv. 9 sq. St. Paul’s usual for- 
mula is df alone, with the art.: see 
notes on Gal. i. 5. 
Tovs ai@vas «.T.A] ‘to the ages of 
the ages, i.e. ‘for all eternity ;’ see 
notes on Gal. i. 5. 


> 
€ls 


18. radtny Thy Tapayyeadtar| 
‘This command ;’ ti 8€ maparyyéAAeis, 
The 
reference of these words has been very 
differently explained: they have been 
referred (a) directly to maparyyetAns, ver. 
3, Calvin, Est., Mack; (b) to mapayye- 
Alas, ver.5, Beng.; (c) to miords 6 Adyos 
k. T. A., Peile; (d) to va orpar., Chrys., 
De Wette, al, comp. John xiii. 34. The 
objection to (a) lies in the fact that in 
ver. 3 mapayy. is defined and done with ; 
to (b) that the purport of the rapa. is 
not defined, but only its aim stated; and 
to both that the length of the digression, 
and the distance of the apodosis from the 
protasis is far too great: (c) is obviously 
untenable, as ver. 15 involves no mapay- 
yeAia at all. It seems best, then, with 
Chrys. and the principal modern exposi- 
tors, to refer maparyy. directly to iva oTpar., 
and indirectly and allusively to ver. 3 
sq., inasmuch as obedience to the com- 
mand there given must form a part of 
the Kad} orpateta. This verse thus forms 
a general and appropriate conclusion ; 
ver. 3—11 convey the direct injunctions ; 
ver. 12—16 the authority of the apostle ; 
ver. 18 sq. the virtual substance of his 
previous injunctions expressed in the 
simplest form. 


eimé; iva orpatevn x. T. A., Chrys. 


mapatlxepnal 


~~ eel 2 


Cuap. I. 18. 


1 TIMOTHY. 39 


, / . \ / oN EN / Lod 
Texvoyv Tiposyee, KaTa Tas Tpoayovcas éml oe TpopyteElas, wa 


aot] ‘I commit unto thee, as a sacred 
trust ;’ Tis pvdakis TO axpiBes SnAot, 
Chrys. ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2. The use 
and force of the middle in such forms of 
expression may be perhaps felt by ob- 
serving that the object is represented, as 
it were, emanating from, or belonging 
to, the subject of the verb; see Kriiger, 
Sprachl. 52. 8. 6, p. 365, and compare 
Donalds. Gr. § 482. 2. bb. 

kata Tas, K. 7. A.] ‘in accordance with 
the forerunning prophecies about thee ;’ de- 
fining clause apparently intended to add 
weight to the apostle’s exhortation (ao- 
pay mpos exelvas..... mapavaco, The- 
ophyl.), and to suggest to Timothy an 
additional ground of obligation ; éefvwy 
&ovcoy, éxeivais Teidou..... exeival oe 
efAovto eis 6 eiAovts oe, Chrys. There 
is thus no necessity for here assuming an 
hyperbaton, scil. a orpatedn Kata Tas 
«. T.A. (Cicum., Moller), a very forced 
and untenable construction. 

‘ forerunning,’ ‘ precur- 
sory;’ see Heb. vil. 18, mpoayovons év- 
roAjs. The order of the words might 
seem to imply the connection of ém ce 
with mpoayotcas (‘leading the way to, 
pointing to you as their object,’ Matth.), 
but as this involves a modification of the 
simple meaning of rpodyw, and also (see 
below) of apopnreta as well; it is best, 
with De W., Huther, and most modern 
commentators, to connect ém cé with 
mpopyteias. It is not however necessary 
to give mpd a purely temporal sense 
(Syr.); the local or quasi-local meaning 
which nearly always marks the word in 
the N. T. may be fully retained; the 
prophecies went forward, as it were,. the 
heralds and avant-couriers to the actions 
which they foretold ; comp. ch. v. 24. 
emt oé| ‘ upon thee,’ or, more in accord- 
ance with our idiom, ‘concerning thee,’ 
‘respecting thee,’ Peile. °Em marks the 
ethical direction, which, as it were, the 


mTpoayovaas| 
? 


prophecies took (see Winer, Gr. § 49.1, 
p-. 362), and, with its proper concomi- 
tant idea, of ‘ultimate super-position,’ 
points to the object on whom they came 
down (from above) and rested ; see Do- 
nalds. Gr. § 483, and compare the exx. 
in Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 42. 1, p. 543. 
Tas tTpopyntetas| ‘the prophecies :’ 
not ‘the premonitions of the Holy Spirit’ 
(kata Selay amoKkdAviiy Thy xepotoviay 
éd¢tw, Theodoret) which led to the ordi- 
nation of Timothy (Hammond in loc., 
Thorndike, Gov. of Churches, ch. 1v. 8, 
—an interpretation which involves a 
modification of the meaning of rpopnrteta 
which the word can scarcely bear), but, 
in accordance with its usual meaning in 
the N. T., ‘the predictions suggested by 
the Spirit,’ ‘the prophecies ? which were 
uttered over Timothy at his ordination 
(and perhaps conversion, Fell, compare 
Theophyl.), foretelling his future zeal 
and success in the promulgation of the 
gospel. The plural may point to pro- 
phecies uttered at his circumcision and 
other chief events of his spiritual life 
(Theophyl.), or, more probably, to the 
several sources (the presbyters perhaps) 
from whence they proceeded at his ordi- 
nation ; comp. ch. iv. 14, vi. 12. 

tva otpatevn| ‘that thou mayest war,’ 
etc. In this use of fva after verbs imply- 
ing ‘command,’ ‘ exhortation,’ etc., the 
subjunctive clause is not a mere circum- 
locution for a simple infinitive, but serves 
to mark the purpose contemplated by the 
command as well as the immediate sub- 
ject of it; compare Luke x. 40, al., 
and see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 299 sq. 
On the uses of iva in the N. T. see notes 
on Eph. i. 17. 
‘in them, as your spiritual protection and 
equipment;’ emphatic. The translation 
of De Wette, ‘in the might of,’ is not 
sufficiently exact. The prep. has here 
its usual and proper force ; it is not iden- 


év avtais| 


40 


a \ t 
oTpatein ev avtals THY Kad}Y oTpaTelar, 


bk PEROT Tr: 


Cuapr. I. 19. 


9 4 t \ 
eXOv TLOTLW Kab 


> \ I cf > / ‘ X f > / 
ayaSnv cuveidnow, hy Ties GT@oapEvol TEL THY TLoTW Evaua- 


tical in meaning with did (Mosh., comp. 
Cicum.), or with card (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
II. p. 351, and virtually Huther) but, in 
accordance with the image, marks, as it 
were, the armor zm which Timothy was 
to wage his spiritual warfare; so Mack, 
Matth., and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346; 
comp. also Green, Gr. p. 289. Huther 
objects to this as artificial, but surely his 
own interpretation ‘ within, in the bounds 
of their application,’ is more open to the 
charge, and scarcely so intelligible. 
otpatetay] ‘warfare;’ not paxny, 
Theodoret (‘ Kampf, De W.), but more 
inclusively, ‘ militiam,’ Clarom., Vulg., 
—the service of a otpatiérns in all its 
details and particulars; comp. Huther 
For examples of this simplest 
form of the cognate accus. (when the 
subst. is involved in the verb, and only 
serves to amplify its notion), see Winer, 
Gr. § 32. 2, p. 201, and for a correct val- 
uation of the supposed rhetorical force, 
the excellent article by Lobeck, Parali- 
pom. p. 501 sq. 

19. 2x wv] ‘having,’ Hammond ; not 
‘retinens’ (Beza) as a shield or weapon 
(Mack, Matth.), in reference to the pre- 
ceding metaphor,— this would have been 
expressed by a more precise word, e. 9 
évadaBév, Eph. vi. 16,—or ‘ innitens’ 
as a ship on an anchor (Priceus), in 
reference to the succeeding metaphor, 
but simply, ‘Aabens,’ scil. as an inward 
and subjective possession: so Syriac, 
where the verb is simply replaced by the 
prep. & (in, with); see also Meyer on 
Rom. xv. 4. &yasnv cvvets.| 
‘a good conscience ;’ see notes on ver. 5 
supra. hv] Se. ayadhy cuvel- 
Snow. amwodpmevort| ‘having 
thrust away ;’ &récaro’ pakpoy eppupev, 
Hesych. ; see exx. in Wetst. on Rom. xi. 
1. This expressive word marks the de- 
liberate nature of the act, the wilful vio- 


in loc. 


lence which the tives (ver. 3) did to their 
better nature. ’Amécato (Adyov, Acts 
xiii. 46; elsewhere in the N. T. with 
persons, Acts vii. 27, 39, Rom. xi. 1, 2, 
LXX) occurs very frequently in the 
LXX, and several times with abstract 
nouns (dadj«nv, 2 K. xvii. 15 (Alex.) ; 
éAmida, Jer. li. 37; vowov, Jer. vi. 19; 
€optas, Amos v. 21) as a translation of 
ona. The objection of Schleierm. (i. 1 
Lin. p. 36) that St. Paul elsewhere uses 
this word properly (Rom. xi. 1, 2) as in 
reference to something external, not in- 
ternal, is pointless ; Rom. /. c. is a quo- 
tation. Conscience is here suitably rep- 
resented, as it were, another and a better 
self. Viewed practically the sentiment 
is of great moment; the loss of a good 
conscience will cause shipwreck of faith. 
Olsh. mepl thy mlariv} 
‘concerning, in the matter of, the faith.’ 
Loesner compares Philo, de Soman. p. 
1128 p [1x. § 21. Vol. 1. p. 678, ed. 
Mang.], vavaryhoavres, 7) mepl yA@TTav 
&Supov, 7 wep) yaotépa amAnoroy 7) meph 
Thy tev broyactploy axpdropa Aayvelay ; 
there is however some difference in the 
use of the prep. In Philo /. c. it marks 
really what led to the shipwreck; the 
accusatives properly representing the ob- 
jects * around which the action or motion 
take place,’ see Winer, Gr. § 49. i, p. 
361, Donalds. Gr. § 482. c: in the pres- 
ent case merely the object in reference to 
which it happened, perhaps more usually 
expressed by the gen., see Rost u. Palm, 
Lex.8.V. mept, 1. 1.e, Vou 11, p.oele 
At any rate it is surely an oversight in 
Huther to say that ep) with the accus. 
is here used in the sense in which it usu- 
ally stands with the dat. ; for, in the first 
place, wept with dat. is rarely found in 
Attic prose and never in the N. T.; and, 
secondly, wep) with dat. (‘around and 
upon,’ Donaldson, Gr. 482. b), if more 





Cuap. I. 20. 


ynoav" 


Tae Or ¥ 


41 


20 dy eorw “Tuevatos cal AréEavdpos, ods trapéSwxa TO 


Yatava iva rawWevSaow un Pracdnpeiv. 


usual in prose, might have been suitable 
in Philo J. c. (the rock on which they 
split,—comp. Soph. Frag. 149, wept eug 
Kapa KaTdyvuTa 7d TevXos), but certainly 
not in the present passage. Kypke (Obs. 
Vol. 11. p. 353) cites a somewhat differ- 
ent use, wep) Ty Kéay SdAacoay vavayi- 
oat, Diog. Luert. 1.1.7, where the ace. 
seems to mark the area where the disas- 
ter took place, see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. 
v. mepi, 111. 2, Vol. 11. p. 825. 

20. ‘Yuévaros| There does not seem 
any sufficient ground for denying the 
identity of Hymenzus with the heretic 
of that name in 2 Tim. ii.17. Mosheim 
(de Rebus, ete., p. 177 sq.) urges the 
comparatively milder terms in which 
Hymenzus is spoken of, 2 Tim. 1. c. ; 
the one he says was the ‘ open enemy,’ 
the other ‘the insidious corrupter’ of 
Christianity. On comparing however 
the two passages, it will be seen that the 
language and even structure is far too 
similar to render any such distinction 
either plausible or probable. The only 
difference is, that here the apostle notices 
the fact of his excommunication, there 
his fundamental error; that error how- 
ever was a BéBnaAos kevopwria, 2 Tim. 
ii 16. This certainly affords a hint 
(somewhat too summarily repudiated by 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 314), in favor of 
the late date of this epistle ; see notes on 
ver. 3. "AA €Eavopos] Iris 
more difficult to decide whether this per- 
son is identical (a) with Alexander, 6 
xaArkevs, 2 Tim. iv. 14, or (b) with Alex- 
ander, Acts xix. 33, or (as seems most 
probable) different from either. The 
addition 6 xaAKe’s in the second epistle, 
and the fact that he seems to have been 
more a personal adversary of the apos- 
tle’s than an heretical teacher, incline us 
to distinguish him from the excommuni- 
cate Alexander. All that can be said 


6 


in favor of (b) is that the Alexander, 
mentioned Acts J.c., was probably a 
Christian ; see Meyer in loc., and Wiese- 
ler, Chronol. p. 56. The commonness of 
the names makes any historical or chro- 
nological inferences very precarious ; see 
Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 347, note 
(Bohn). wmapédwka TH 
Saravé] ‘I delivered over to Satan,’ 
‘tradidi Satane,’ Vulgate,— scil. at some 
former period. The exact meaning of 
this formula has been much discussed. 
Does it mean (a) simply, excommunica- 
tion? Theod. zn loc. and on 1 Cor. v. 5, 
Theoph. in /oc., Bals., on Can. vit. (Ba- 
silii), al. ; comp. Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. ch. 
4, Vol. 11. p. 233 (Angl. Cath. Libr.) ; or 
(6) simply, supernatural infliction of cor- 
poreal suffering, Wolf on Cor. l. c., and 
appy. Chrys., who adduces the example 
of Job; or (c) both combined, Meyer, 
and most modern interpreters? The 
latter view seems most in harmony with 
this passage, and esp. with 1 Cor. J. c., 
where simple exclusion from the Church 
is denoted by atpe ék wéoov. We con- 
clude then with Waterland, that ‘ deliy- 
ery over to Satan’ was a form of Chris- 
tian excommunication, declaring the per- 
son reduced to the state of a heathen, 
accompanied with the authoritative inflic- 
tion of bodily disease or death; on Fun- 
damentals, ch. 4, Vol. 111. p. 460. The 
patristic views will be found in Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 940, and Petavius, 
Theol. Dogm. Vol. tv. p. 108. In thig 
fearful formula, the offender is given over 
7 ZatavG, to the Evil One in his most 
distinct personality ; comp. notes on Eph. 
iv. 27. Tatdsevsa@ory] ‘be dis- 
ciplined,’ Hamm. ; ‘ taught hy punishment,’ 
Conyb. The true Christian meaning of 
maidevev, ‘ per molestias erudire,’ is here 
distinctly apparent ; see Trench, Synon. 
§ 32, and notes on Eph. vi. 4. 


42 


I exhort that prayers be of- 
fered for all, for this is ac- 
ceptable to God, who willeth 
the salvation of all, and 
whose Gospel I preach. 


Cuarter IL. 1. mwaparad®& ody] 
‘Texhort then;’ ‘in pursuance of my 
general admonition (ch. i. 18) I proceed 
to special details.’ It is singular that 
Schleierm., and after him De W., should 
find here no logical connection, when 
really the sequence of thought seems so 
easy and natural, and has been so fairly 
explained by several older (comp. Corn. 


a Lap.), and most modern expositors. ° 


In ch. i. 18, the apostle gives Timothy a 
commission in general terms, iva otpa- 
tevy x. T. A. This, after the very slight 
digression in ver. 19, 20, he proceeds to 
unfold in particulars, the first and most 
important of which is the duty of prayer 
in all its forms. The particle ody has 
thus its proper collective force (‘ad ea, 
que antea posita sunt, lectorem revocat,’ 
Klotz; ‘continuation and _ retrospect,’ 
Donalds. Gr. § 604), and could not 
properly be replaced by any other parti- 
cle; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717. 
For the use of this and similar particles, 
the student is especially referred to Euclid 
(e. g. Book 1): the careful perusal in the 
original language of three or four lead- 
ing propositions will give him more ex- 
act views of the real force of &pa, obv 
x. T. A. than he could readily acquire in 
any other way. 
adévtwyv) ‘first of all, ‘imprimis ;’ not 
priority in point of time, sc. év TH Aatpela 
Th kadnuepn, Chrys. (compare Conyb. 
and Howsen), ‘ diluculo,’ Erasm.,— but 
of dignity; see Bull, Serm. x111. p. 243 
(Oxf. 1844), and comp. Matth. vi. 33. 
The adverb is thus less naturally con- 
nected with moretoSar than with the lead- 
ing word mapaxaa@ (Syr., Auth. Ver.). 
The combination mp@tov mdvtwv only 
occurs in the N. T. in this place. 

dehoets K.T. A. ‘petitions, prayers, sup- 
plications, thanksgivings.’ It has been 


TpaTov 


1. TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. II, 1. 


I]. Ilapaxanr otv rpatov ravtwv Trovetc- 
4 
Sas Senoes, mposevyds, evrevfers, evyapiotias, 


somewhat hastily maintained by Heinr., 
De W. (comp. Justin.), al., that the first 
three terms are little more than synony- 
mous, and only cumulatively denote 
prayer. On the other hand several spe- 
cial distinctions (comp. Theodoret in /oc., 
Greg. Naz. Carm. 15, Vol. 11. p. 200) 
and applications (August. Epist. Lix. 
12) have been adduced, which certainly 
cannot be substantiated. Still there is 
a difference : 5é€yots seems a special form 
(rogatio) of the more general mrpocevx 
(precatio), see notes on Eph. vi. 18; &- 
tevéis (ch. iv. 5) is certainly not a déyo1s 
eis éxdixnow (Hesych.; comp. Theod.), 
but, as its derivation (évrvyxdvw) sug- 
gests, prayer in its most individual and 
urgent form (ét. kat éxBonoes, Philo, 
Quod Det. Pot. § 25, Vol. 1. p. 209), 
prayer in which God is, as it were, 
sought in audience (Polyb. Hist. v. 35. 
4., 111. 15. 4), and personally drawn 
nigh to; compare Origen, de Orat. § 44, 
éyrevieis Tas Ud TOU Tappyclay Tiva TAcl- 
Thus, then, as Huth. ob- 
serves, the first term marks the idea of 
our insufficiency [5e?, compare Beng.], 
the second that of devotion, the third 
that of childlike confidence. The ordi- 
nary translation, ‘intercessions,’ as Au- 
thorized Ver, Alf., al. (comp. Schoettg. 
in lcc.), too much restricts évrevéis, as it 
does not per se imply any reference to 
others: see ch. iv. 5, where such a mean- 
ing would be inappropriate, and comp. 
Rom. viii. 27, 34, xi. 2, Heb. vii. 25, 
where the preposition, dwep or kara, 
marks the reference and direction of the 
prayer; see especially the examples in 
Raphel, Annotations Vol. 11. p. 567 sq. 
who has yery copiously illustrated this 
word. evxaptottas| ‘ thanks- 
givings :’ thanksgiving, was to be the 
perpetual concomitant of prayer; see 


ova €xovrTos. 


. 


Cuap. II. 2. 


irép Tavtav avSperrav, ° 


Feri wOo THY. 


43 


€ \ , ai Wi lA rn ] 
umép Bacitiéwv Kal TaVT@V TOV €V 


ig my sk vA wv \ e€ 7 / / > UZ 
Umepoyyn dvTwV, va Npewov Kai naovy.ov Biov Sidyopev ev Taon 


esp. Phil. iv. 6, Col. iv. 2; Justin M. 
Apol. 1. 13, 67, al., and comp. Harless, 
Ethik, § 31. a. It is scarcely necessary 
to say that the special translation ‘ eucha- 
rists’ (J. Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. 1. 2. Vol. 
11. p. 66, Angl. Cath. Libr.), is wholly 
untenable. 
a&vdp. is to be connected, not merely 
with the last, but with all the foregoing 
substantives ; tata d¢ movety bmep amdy- 


UTEP TAaYTWY 


Tov aviparwy Tapeyyua, emeidy Kat X. I. 
WAdev cis Thy KdoMmov auapTwAods cHoat, 
Theodoret. To further encourage this 
universality in prayer Justin, Apol. 11. 
15), the apostle proceeds to specify, nom- 
inatim, particular classes for whom it 
ought to be offered ; comp. Chrys. in /oc. 
2. bmep BactrAéwy] ‘for kings,’ — 
generally, without any special reference 
to the Roman emperors. It is an in- 
stance of the perverted ingenuity of Baur 
(comp. De W.) to refer the plural to the 
emperor and his associate in rule, as 
they appear in the age of the Antonines ; 
surely this would have been tay Bact- 
Aéwy. On the custom, generally, of 
praying for kings (Ezra vi. 10, Baruch 
i. 11), see Justin, Apol. 1. 17, Tertull. 
Apologet. cap. 39, the passages collected 
by Ottius, Spicileg. p. 433, and Grinf. 
Schol. Hell. Vol. 11. p. 580. It is very 
noticeable that the neglect of this duty 
on the part of the Jews Jed to the com- 
mencement of their war with the Ro- 
mans, see Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 17. 2. 
év bwepoxh] ‘in authority ;’ all who 
have any share of constituted authority, 
the efovela: tmepéxovoa, “Rom. xiii. 1; 
comp. 2 Mace. iil. 11, avdpds év brepoxi 
kemevov, Polyb. Hist. v. 41. 3. trois ev 
brepoxais ovow. tva hpemoyv 
k. 7. A.] ‘in order that we may pass a 
quiet and tranquil life:’ contemplated 
end and object, not import of the interces- 
sory prayer; dpa ti pyot, kal mas Tidnot 


7) Képdos iva Kav ottw d€én Thy Tapalve- 
N ekelvwv TwTNpla NUaY dmepyevia 
tmdpxet, Chrys. The prayer has clearly 
not a purely subjective reference, ‘ that 
we may lead a life of quietude and sub- 
mission’ (Mack, comp. Heydenr.), nor 
again a purely objective reference, ‘ that 
they may thus let us live in quiet,’ but 
in fact involves both, and has alike a per- 
sonal and a political application,—‘ that 
through their good government we may 
enjoy peace:’ the blessing * the powers 
that be’ will receive from our prayers 
will redound to us in outward peace and 
inward tranquillity; comp. Wiesing. zn 
loc. *“Hpemos is a late form of adjective 
derived from the adv. npéua; comp. Lu- 
cian, Tragod. 209, Eustath. Z/. vir. p. 
142.9. Lobeck (Pathol. p. 158) cites a 
single instance of its usage in early 
Greek ; Inser. Olbiopol. No. 2059. The 
correct adjectival form is jpeuatos. 

novxeov] ‘tranquil ;’ once only again, 


bake ote 


1 Pet. iii. 4, rod mpados kad jovxlov mred- 
patos. The distinction drawn by Olsh. 
between jjpeuos and jovx10s can appy. be 
substantiated ; the former [connected ap- 
parently with Sanscr. ram, ‘rest in a 
chamber,’— the fundamental idea accord- 
ing to Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 
262] seems to denote tranquillity arising 
from without, ‘ qui ab aliis non perturba- 
tur,’ Tittmann; compare Plato, Def. p. 
412 A, Apeula Wuxis wept Ta Sewd; Plu- 
tarch, Sol. 31, thv Te xadpav éevepyeotépay 
kal Thy woAW jpeuavotépay éemolnoey: the 
latter [connected with “H3-, ja, Ben- 
fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1 p. 418] tranquillity 
arising from within, 1 Pet. l. c.; comp. 
Plato, Charm. p. 160 a, jovxuos 6 ow- 
ppwv Bios. So, in effect, Tittmann, ex- 
cept that he assigns to 70x. more of an 
active meaning, ‘qui aliis nullas turbas 
excitat,’ Synon. 1. p. 65. On the use of 
Bios for ‘manner of life,’ comp. Treneh, 


44 


r TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. II.:3, 4. 


evaeBeia Kal ceuvornti. 3 TodTo yap Kadov Kal derodexTov éve- 


mov ToD cwTHpos juav Oeod, 


Synon. § 27. év ebaoce Bela 
k. T- A.| ‘in all godliness and gravity ;’ 
the moral sphere in which they were to 
move. Mera might have been used with 
ceuvdrns (comp. iii. 4), but would have 
been less appropriate with eaéBea; the 
latter is to be not merely an accompani- 
ment but a possession (comp. Heb. xi. 
2,and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346), the 
sphere in which they were always to 
walk. It is proper to observe that both 
these substantives are only used by St. 
Paul in the Pastoral Epistles. 

° ” 
evoePeta, las|, Daa? [timor 
Jehove] Syr., is a word which occurs 
several times in these Epp. e.g. ch. iii. 
16, iv. 7, 8, vi. 3, 5, 6,11, 2 Tim. iii. 5, 
Tit. i. 1, see also Acts iii. 12, 2 Pet. i. 3, 
6, 7, iii. 11. It properly denotes only 
‘ well-directed reverence ’ (Trench, Synon. 
§ 48), but in the N. T. is practically the 
same as SeooéBeia (ch. ii. 10), and is 
well defined by Tittmann, Syzon. 1. p. 
146, as ‘vis piectatis in ipsa vita vel ex- 
terna vel interna,’ and more fully, but 
with accuracy, by Euseb., Prep. Evang. 
I. p. 3, as 9 mpds Tov Eva Kad pdvoy as 
GANSaS 5uoroyobmerdy Te Kal ovTa Ody 
avdvevots, kal ) Kate rooTov (wy. Thus 
then eicéB. conveys the idea, not of an 
‘inward, inherent holiness, but, as Alford 
(on Acts iii. 12) correctly observes, of a 
‘ practical, operative, cultive piety :’ see 
other, but less precise, definitions in Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. 1264, and esp. 
the discriminating remarks of Harless, 
Ethik, § 37. cemvoTns 
(only here, ch. iti. 4, and Titus ii. 7) ap- 
pears to denote that ‘decency and pro- 
priety of deportment,’ ‘morum gravitas 
et castitas,’ Estius (Ehrbarkeit,’ Luther), 
which befits the chaste (Chrys. ; comp., 
in an exaggerated sense, Eur. Zph. Aud. 
1350), the young, (ch. ili. 4, Tit. ii. 7), 


4 Os mavtas avSparous Séree 


and the earnest (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 
2), and is, as it were, the appropriate 
setting of higher graces and virtues ; 
compare Joseph. Vit. § 49, peta mdons 
ceuy. Kal tdons Se GpeTis Evdade mwemual- 
TEVA. 

3. rodTrol Scil. 7d cbyeoSau rep wav 

Tw: TovTe amodéxeTa 56 Oeds, Tove 
S%éAe, Chrys. This verse stands in more 
immediate connection with ver. 1, of 
which verse 2 really only forms a semi- 
parenthetical illustration. To please 
God is the highest motive that can influ- 
ence a Christian. Téap is omitted by 
Lachm. with A; 17. 67** ; Copt., Sa- 
hid. (not Pesch., as Bloomf. asserts),— 
evidence, however, far from sufficient. 
The omission very probably arose from 
a want of perception of the true connec- 
tion between ver. 1, 2, and 3. 
KaAddv Kal amodexrdy] Not ‘good 
and acceptable before "—Huth., Wiesing., 
Alf., but, ‘yood (per se) and acceptable 
before God,’ Mack, De Wette, al. ; Kat 
Th pioe €or Kaddv..... kal T@ Oc@ be 
amodextéy, Theophylact. Huther urges 
against this 2 Cor. viii. 21, mpovoodmer 
yap KaAd ov pdvov evwmiov Kuplov k. T. A., 
but there, as still more clearly in Rom. 
xii. 17, mpovooduevor Kad& [opp. to kaxdy, 
ver. 16] évémov ravtwv avepérwv, the 
latter clause evdémioy x. T. A. is not con- 
nected simply with xadd, but with mpor. 
kadd, see Meyer in loc. *Arodexrds (not 
amddextos, as Lachm., Tisch.; see Lo- 
beck, Paralip. v11. 11, p. 490) is used in 
N. T. only here, and ch. v. 4; compare 
amodoxh, ch. i. 15. TOU CTT 
pos «.7.A.] our Saviour God :’ sce notes 
on ch. i. 1. The appropriateness of the 
title is evinced by the following verse. 

4.38 wdvras x. 7.4] ‘whose, t. e. 
seeing his will is (not * whose wish is,’ 
Peile ; compare notes on ch. v. 14) that 
all men should be saved,’ etc.; explanatory 


Cuap. II. 4. 5. 


codivat Kai els ériyvwow aryYelas édeiv. 


and faintly confirmatory of the preceding 
assertion; see Col. i. 25, and notes in 
doc. On this slightly causal, or perhaps 
rather explanatory force of és, see Ellendt, 
‘ Lex. Soph. s. v. 111. 3, Vol. 11. p. 371, 
and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 12. a, 
p. 291 sq. 
phatic, Rom. viii. 32; ‘omnes, etiam non 
eredentes, vult salvari, Beng. ; mimod ~dv 


mavtas| Em- 


@cdv’ ci wavras avSpémovs SéAEt TwodHveri, 
Sérc nal ov" ei FE BeAeis cto, TaY yap 
toovtwy ect! 7 e¥xeoSa, Chrys. The 
various dogmatical expositions of this 
important verse will be found_in Justini- 
ani, Corn. a Lap., and Estius in loc. ; 
compare also Petavius, Theol. Dogmut. 
Vol. 1. Book x. 1.2 sq., Vol. v. Book 
XI. 1.3, 4, Forbes, Znstruct. vi11. 18, 
p- £15 sq. Without entering upon them 
in detail, or overstepping the limits pre- 
scribed to this commentary, it seems 
proper to remark that all attempted re- 
strictions (‘ quosvis homines, Beza, com- 
pare August. Lnchirid. § 103; compare 
contr. Winer, Gr. §18. 4, p. 101) of this 
vital text are as much to be reprehended 
on the one hand, as that perilous univer- 
salism on the other, which ignores or 
explains away the clear declaration of 
Scripture, that there are those whose 
iAespos shall be aidyvios (2 Thess. i. 9), 
and whose portion shall be the dSedrepos 
Suvaros (Rev. xxi. 8): the remarks of 
Usteri, Lehrb. 11. B. p. 352 sq. are very 
unsatisfactory. Setting aside all techni- 
cal, though perhaps plausible, distinc- 
tions between the ‘ voluntas antecedens’ 
and ‘ voluntas consequens’ of God (Da- 
mase. Orth. Fid. 11. 29), it seems enough 
to say, that Scripture declares in terms 
of the greatest latitude (see esp. Ham- 
mond, Fundamentals, x1v. 2, and comp. 
Pract. Catechism 11.2, p. 18, Angl. C. 
Libr.) that God does will the salvation 
(cwSfvar not cacat) of all; all are ren- 


dered (through Jesus Christ) “ salvabi-. 


eR VE OM EL Y. 


45 


5 eis yap Oeos, eis 


les’ and ‘salvandi’ (Barrow, Serm. 72). 
That some are indisputably not saved 
(Matt. xxv. 41 sq., Rev. xx. 10, 15, xxii. 
15, al.) is not due to any outward cit- 
cumscription or inefficacy of the Divine 
SéAnua (Episcop. Jnst. Theol. rv. 2. 21), 
but to man’s rejection of the special 
means of salvation which God has been 
pleased to appoint, and to which it is 
also His Divine 3éAnua (Eph. i. 9) that 
man’s salvation should be limited; comp. 
Miiller on Sin, 111. 2.1, Vol. 11. p. 211 
(Clark). In a word, redemption is uni- 
versal, yet conditional ; all maybe saved, 
yet all well not be saved, because all will 
not conform to God’s appointed condi-' 
tions; see Hammond, /.c. § 15; and 
esp. Barrow, Works, Vol. 1v. p. 1—97, 
who in four sermons (71—74) has nearly 
exhausted the subject. The two further 
momentous questions connected with 
this doctrine are fairly stated by Ebrard, 
Dogmatik, § 557 sq., Vol. 11. p. 689, 
comp. also Martensen, Dogm. § 219 sq. 

kaleis é€miyvwotv x.7.A.| ‘and to 
come to the ( full) knowledge of the truth ;” 
comp. 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7: no inversion 
of clauses, but a further specification of 
the more immediate object and end ; see 
Winer, Gr. § 61. 3. obs., p. 488. The 
cwoijva is the ultimate, the eis émiyy. 
GAnd. eAdetv, an immediate end leading 
naturally and directly to the former. 
The introduction of this latter moment 
of thought is suggested by, and suitably 
precedes, the enunciation of the great 
truth which is contained in the following 
verse. On émiyyvwois (‘ cognitio certa et 
accurata’) see notes on Eph. i. 17, and 
on the emissions of the art. notes on 2 
Tim. ii. 25. It may be remarked that 
aAhSera here, as commonly in the N. T., 
implies no mere theoretical, but, practical 
and saving truth, ‘veritas salvifica,’ as 
revealed in the Gospel; dans. molas ; 
Tis eis altov miorews, Chrysost.; see 


46 


DMO ioe ¥. 


Cnap. II. 5, 6. 


kal pecitns Ocod kal avSpoHrav, avSpwros Xpictos *Inoods, 
6 6 dovs éavTov ayTiAVTpoV UTép TavTwWY, TO papTUpLOV KaLpois 


Reuss, Theol. rv. 8, Vol. 11. p. 82. A 
special treatise on this word has been 
written by Baumann, Strasb. 1838. 

5. efs yap Oeds] ‘ For there is one 
God ; proof of the foregoing explanatory 
assertion, the yap having here its simple 
argumentative force, and connecting this 
yerse, not with ver. 1 (Leo, Mack), but 
with the verse immediately preceding. 
Eis and mdy7as stand thus in correlation ; 
the universality of the dispensation is 
proved by the unity of the Dispenser. 
The existence of different dispensations 
for different portions of the human race, 
would seem inconsistent with the con- 
ception of one supreme, all-ruling Crea- 
tor; ‘unius Dei una providentia ;’ com- 
pare Rom. iii. 30, where a similar argu- 
ment is introduced by the forcible (Har- 
tung, Part. Vol. 1. p. 342) éselzep. 
efs kal weoizns] ‘one mediator also:’ 
6 év éavtg@ Ta dieotaGta cuvdas, Theod. 
In this and similar distinctions between 
the first and second Persons of the bles- 
sed Trinity (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6, Eph. 
iv. 4—6), Reuss finds traces of a citra- 
Athanasian view (so to speak) of the 
subordination of the Son; Theol. Chrét. 
iv. 10, Vol. 11. p. 102. This is not cor- 
rect: all that could reasonably be infer- 
red from such a text as the present is the 
catholic doctrine of a subordination in 
respect of office; see Waterland, Second 
Vind. Vol. 11. p. 400. The position of 
De Wette after Schleierm. (iiber.1 Tim. 
p. 177), that this use of weoitns, without 
definite allusion to a dadh«n, argues a 
compiler from the Ep. to the Heb. (viii. 
6, ix. 15, xii 24), is not entitled to seri- 
ous attention or confutation. The pre- 
vious allusion to redemption (ver. 4) and 
the antithesis of the eis @eds and avr. 
avep. suggest the use of a term that best 
sustains that relation: see also Ebrard, 
Dogm. § 406, and a good sermon by Bey- 


eridge, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 86 sq. (Angl. 
Cath. Libr. cod ral 
avspomwy| ‘of God and men:’ both 
anarthrous ; the former in accordance 
with its common privilege of rejecting 
the article (see exx. Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 
110), the latter, from a bare indication 
of the other party only being necessary. 
In both cases the omission is obviously 
suggested by the familiarity of both the 
terms connected by the conjunction; see 
Green, Gr. Iv. 3, p. 181. 
&vaSpwmros X.1.] ‘aman Christ Jesus.’ 
The human nature of Christ is specially 
mentioned as being the state in which 
His mediatorial office was visibly per- 
formed ; &ySpwmov de Toy Xpictoy dvdua- 
cev emeld)) mecitny exddAecev’ emavSpwTt- 
cas yap éueoirevoey, Theod. On the du- 
ration of Christ’s mediation, see Pearson, 
Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. 834 (ed. Burton). 
The omission of the article (scarcely 
noticed by the modern German com- 
mentators) must be preserved in transla- 
tion. Middleton (Greek Art. p. 388, ed. 
Rose) considers the article unnecessary, 
and compares &vSp. X. I. with «vpios X. 
*I.; but the comparison fails, as Kvpios 
has so unequivocally the character of a 
proper name; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 
113. In a different context Christ might 
clearly have been designated as 6 bvSp., 
‘the (representative) man of humanity’ 
(comp. Peile in Joc.) ; here, however, as 
the apostle only wishes to mark the na- 
ture in which Christ éuecitevoev, but not 
any relation in which He stood to that 
nature, he designedly omits the article. 
The distinction of Alford between ‘ indi- 
vidual and generic humanity’ seems here 
out of place, and not involved in the con- 
text: contrast Wordsw. in loc., who per- 
tinently cites August. Serm. xxv1. Vol. 
v. p. 174, ed. Migne. 

6. avtiAurpor] ‘ ransom; the avts 


Cuap. II. 6, 7. 


I-PIaO THY. 


47 


idiows, 7 eis 6 éréSnv ey KypvE Kal dmdoToXos (ddjSevav AEyo, 


ov wevdopuat), SuddcKaros éSvev év TlaTeE Kab adyYeia. 


being here by no means redundant 
(Schleierm. p. 42, comp. Suicer, Thesaur. 
s. v. Vol. 1. p. 377), but serving to ex- 
press the idea of exchange, ‘ permutatio- 
nem, qua veluti capite caput et vita vitam 
redemit,’ Just.; compare dytdAAayua, 
Matt. xvi. 26, avripuxov, Ignat. Smyrn. 
10, and the valuable remarks on it of 
Pearson, Vind. Ign. chap. xv. p. 597 
(Angl. C. Libr.). In this important 
word the idea of a substitution of Christ 
in our stead cannot be ignored (see, thus 
far, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 17, Vol. 
Ir. p. 185, sq.), especially when connect- 
ed with passages of such deep signifi- 
cance as Rom. iii. 25 (our Lord’s death 
was a true ‘expiatorium,’ a propitiatory 
sacrifice,’ see Meyer on Rom. l. c.) and 
’ Eph. v. 2: compare also Meyer on Rom. 
v. 6, and for some calm and clear com- 
ments on this ‘ satisfactio vicaria,’ Mar- 
tensen, Dogmatik, § 157 sq., p. 343. All 
the modern theories of atonement seem 
to forget that God hates sin as sin, not 
as a personal offence against Himself. 
‘How is a God thus holy and just to be 
reconciled 2 See M‘Cosh, Divine Gov. 
Iv. 2.3, p. 475 (4thed.). Waterland’s 
words are few, but very weighty; on 
Fundam. Vol. v. p. 82. 
tirép mavtwy] On the meaning of 
irép in dogmatical passages, see notes on 
Gal. iii. 13. Here trép (‘in commo- 
dum’) seems to point to the benefit con- 
ferred by Christ upon us, év7) to His 
substitution of Himself in our place. 
7d wapTtuptoy Kk. 7. A.] ‘the (import of 
the) testimony (to be set forth) in its proper 


™~ > Oo 
seasons ;’ Syriac 22\2 |2o20m 


22 a 
O1ID}= [testimonium quod venit in 
tempore suo], not ‘ the proof of it,’ etc, 
Middleton, Art. p. 389. Some little dif- 
ficulty has been felt in these words, ow- 
ing to the true nature of the apposition 


not having been recognized. Td uaprtpiov 
is an accusative in apposition, to the pre- 
ceding sentence, not to a@yriAutpoy (Ort 
GvtlAvtpov Td mapt. Aeyw, TovTETTL Td 
magos, Theophyl. 2), but to 6 dovs 
mavtwy, scil. ‘que res (nempe quod sua 
ipsius morte omnes homines redemisset, 
Luke xxiv. 46, 47) testimonii suo tempore 
(ab apostolis) dicendi argumentum esset,’ 
Fritz. Rom. xii. 1, Vol. 111. p. 12, where 
this passage is very carefully investigat- 
ed; see also Winer, Gir. § 59. 9. p. 472, 
and Scholef. Hints, p. 118. Thus there 
is no reason whatever for modifving the 
text (Liicke, Stud. u. Krit. for 1836, p. 
651 sq.); the insertion of of before 7d 
papr., with DFG al., and of édd3y after 
idiots with D'KG, are incorrect (compare 
Fritz.) explanatory additions, and the 
omission of 7d wap. in A due apparently 
to accident. 


were 


Katpots tdlors] 
‘its own seasons ;’ scil. rots mpoonKoust, 
Chrys. It is singular that Liicke should 
have felt any difficulty in this formula; 
comp. Gal. vi. 16, and somewhat simi- 
larly Polyb. Hist. 1.30. 10, xvi11. 34, 6. 
‘Tempus testimonio de Christi morte 
expiatoria hominibus ab apostolis di- 
cendo idoneum, illud tempus est quod a 
Spiritus Sancti adventu ad apostolos 
(Acts i. 8) usque ad solemnem Christi 
reditum de coelo (2 Thess. i. 10) labitur,” 
Fritz. J.c.. The dative then is not a 
quasi dat. commodi (compare Scholef., 
Peile), but the dat. of the time wherein 
the action takes place ; comp. Rom. xvi. 
25, xpdvois aiwvlos ceorynuévov, and see 
exx. in Winer, Gram. § 31. 9, p. 195. 
This form of the temporal dative thus 
approximates to the ordinary use of the 
temporal gen. (‘period within which ;’ 
comp. Donalds. Gr. § 451. ff, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 47. 2), and is more correctly 
preceded by év; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 
48, 2, Wannowski, Constr. Abs. 111, 1, 


48 1 TIMOTHY. Cuap. II. 7, 8. 


I desire that the men pray 8 , 5 /, 5. an 
‘reverently, and that the wo- Bovdop at OuV ™p ooEvyed Sal TOUS dvdpas 


men dress and comport éy qrayTl TOm@ emalpovTas dalous xElpas Ywpis 
themselves with modesty. 


8. diadroyicnov] So ADKL, Vulg., and many Vv., Origen (3), Chrys., Theo- 
doret (text), al. (Rec., Griesb , Matth., Scholz, Lachm., De Wette (e sil.), Huther, 
Alf.). The plural d:adroyoudv is adopted by Tisch. with FG: 17. 67**. 73. 80 
[MSS. that it is asserted commonly accord with B], and many others; Boern,, 
Copt. Syr. (both); Origen (4), Euseb., Basil, Theod., al. As the external author- 
ities seem decidedly to preponderate in favor of the former, and as it seems more 
probable that the plural should be a correction of the less usual singular (only in 
Luke ix. 46, 47), than that the singular should have been altered from the plural 
for the sake of symmetry in number with épyjs, we retain the reading of the 


Received Text. 


p. 88. The temporal gen., except in a 
few familiar forms, is rare in the N. T. 
7. eis 6) ‘for which, scil. waptipioy ; 
‘cui testimonio dicendo constitutus sum 
preco,’ Fritz. Rom. xii. 1, Vol. 111. p. 15, 
note. kh pvél ‘a herald,’ 
“przeco solemnis, a Deo missus,’ Beng. ; 
only here, 2 Tim. i. 11, and 2 Pet. ii. 5. 
There is no necessity in the present case 
for modifying (‘ preedicator,’ Vulg.) the 
primary meaning of the word ; compare 
Ececlus. xx. 15, avoigte: 7b ordua avrTod ws 
Khp., and see esp. 1 Cor. ix. 27, where 
knpvooew is used of the ‘ agonistic her- 
ald’ in accordance with the tenor of the 
forecoing verses; see Meyer zn loc. 
amdatoados] ‘anapostle,’ in the higher 
sense of the word; péya 7d Tod aroord- 
Aov atlwma Kat 51d TodTO ayTimoLetra Tov- 
tov, Theophyl. : see notes on Gal. i. 1. 
&AjGerav «7. A] ‘IL say the truth, I 
lic not.’ De Wette seems clearly right 
in maintaining that this protestation re- 
fers to the preceding words; the asseve- 
ration with regard to his apostleship was 
of course not intended for Timothy, but 
for the false teachers who doubted his 
apostolical authority. The third official 
designation d:d¢cx. éSvav, then follows 
with full climactic force. To assert that 
this is a phrase which the apostle used 
in his later years ‘with less force and 
relevance than he had once done’ (Alf.) 


appears questionable and precarious. 
év mlaote: k.7.A.| ‘in faith and truth ;” 
the spheres in which the apostle perform- 
ed his mission. The two substantives 
are commonly taken either both with ob- 
jective reference, scil. év mioret dAndiwh ,— 
kal being explanatory, Mack (compare 
Peile, who inappositely cites 2 Thess. 
ii. 13), or both with subjective reference, 
‘faithfully and truly’ év wior. «. dA. = 
motov kat adn&wév), Grinf., Leo [mis- 
cited by De W.] It seems, however, 
more simple to refer wiotis to the subjec- 
tive faith of the apostle, aA7S. to the ob- 
jective truth of the doctrine he delivered ; 


‘quidquid fides docet necessario est ve- 


rum,’ Justin. “AAjxea logically follows 
miotts, for, as the same expositor re- 
marks, ‘hee ad illam aditum recludit ;’ 
comp. John viii. 31. 

8. BotAopat ovv] ‘I desire then:’ 
‘hoc verbo exprimitur auctoritas apos- 
tolica ; cap. v. 14,’ Beng. In BovAopa 
the active wish is implied ; it is no mere 
willingness or acquiescence. On the dis- 
tinction between BovAoua and SéA®, see 
below on ch. vy. 14, and comp. notes on 
Eph. i. 11, and especially the clear and 
satisfactory discussion of Donaldson, 
Cratyl. § 463, p. 694 sq. (ed 3). 
ody] Not simply illative and in reference 
to ver. 7 (Caly.), but retrospective and 


resumptive,— recapitulating, and at the 


Guar. Il 9: 


Nee Devic O mie eve: 


49 


’ n \ Ss x Ai) on Gh oe / \ a 5) <A 
opys Kab OlLANOYLO MOU @MOQAUTWS KAL YUVALKAS EV KATACTOA)) 


same time expanding, the desire ex- 
pressed in ver. 1; ‘in pursuance then of 
my general exhortation, I desire.’ The 
proper collective force of ody is thus not 
wholly lost: on the resumptive use, see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, and notes 
on Gal. iii. 5. mpogTevxerdvat| 
Emphatic; bringing the subject again 
forward, forcibly and distinctly. The 
allusion, as Huther properly contends, 
is clearly to public prayer ; comp. ver. 1. 
Tovs aydpas is thus in antithesis to ras 
yuvaikas, ver. 9, and marks, though here 
not with any special force, but rather al- 
lusively, the fact that the conducting of 
the public prayers moré particularly be- 
longed to the men; compare ver. 12, 1 
Cor. xi. 4, 5. Had the apostle said rav- 
tas, it would not have seemed so con- 
sistent with his subsequent specific direc- 
tion. év wavtTl ré7@ must 
be limited to ‘ every place of customary de- 
votional resort, everywhere where prayer 
is wont to be made’ (Peile); compare 
Basil, de Bapt. 11.qu.8. If the allusion 
had here been particularly to private 
prayer, then ey mayti témw might have 
been referred to the indifferency of place 
in regard to prayer; ‘ omnis locus orato- 
rium est,’ August. Serm. 130, compare 
Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 11. p. 865. This 
however is not conveyed by the present 
words. There is also no polemical ref- 
erence to the limitation of public worship 
among the Jews to the temple (Chrys., 
Wolf),—a fact moreover which is not 
historically true; comp. Est. zn loc. 
émalpovtas x.7.A.| ‘lifting up holy 
hands ;” participial clause, of manner or 
accessories (compare Jelf, Gr. § 698, 
Winer, Gr. § 45. 2), defining both the 
proper bodily gesture and the spiritual 
qualifications required in prayer. The 
Christian, as well as Pagan (Virg. £n. 
1. 93) and Jewish (1 Kings viii, 22, Ps. 
Xxviii. 2) custom of raising aloft the 
7 


hands in prayer, is illustrated by Suicer, 
Thesaur. s.v. evxn, Vol. 11. p. 1276, 
Bingham, Anéiq. x111. 8.10. It was, as 
it were, an oblation to God of the instru- 
ments of our necessities, Chrys. in Psalm. 
ex!, Vol. v. p. 431 (ed. Bened.). The 
folding together of the hands in prayer has 
been shown to be of Indo-Germanic ori- 
gin; see Stud. u. Krit. for 1853, p. 90, 


/and Vierordt’s special treatise on the 


subject, Carlsr. 1851. dalous|} 
‘holy ;’ opp. to BéBnror xetpes, 2 Mace. 
v.16. It is singular that Winer (Gr. § 
11. 1, p. 64) should suggest the possibil- 
ity of so awkward a connection as écious 
(‘ religione perfusos,’ Fritz.) with ézaip., 
and still more so that Fritzsche (Rom. 
Vol. 111. p. 1) should actually adopt it, 
when the common Attic use of adjectives 
in -wos, ete. (Elmsl. Eur. Heracl. 245) 
with only éwo terminations is so distinctly 
found in the N. T. (ver. 9; see Winer 
l.c.), and gives so good a sense. Con- 
trary instances of similar ‘adjectiva minus 
mobilia,’ are collected by Lobeck, Phryn. 
p. 106. Wolf cites Demosth. Mid. 531, 
datas dekias avicxovtes, but the right 
On the true meaning 
of éavos (holy purity). see Harless on Eph. 
iv. 24. It may be remarked that ayvds, 
dulaytos, and Kkadapds are all similarly 
used with xetpes; see Clem. Rom. Cor. 


reading is idfas. 


i. 29, ayvas kad duidvtous xelpas atpovtes, 
and exx. in Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. edx7. 
The first term perhaps denotes freedom 
from (inward) impurity; the second, 
from stain (outwardly contracted) or 
pollution ; the third, from alien admixture : 
see Tittmann, Synon. 1 p. 26 sq. 

Xwpls opyiis x.7.A.] ‘without (or apart 
Jrom) anger and doubting,’ Auth. Ver. 
It does not seem proper either here or 
Phil. ii. 14, to import from the text a 
meaning of Siadoyiouds (‘ disceptatio,’ 
Vulg., and nearly all recent commen- 
tators except Meyer) unconfirmed by 


50 


1-TIMOTEY. 


Cuap. II. 9. 


, MN > Lal \ , lal e 4 ee J ae 
Koopia peta aidods Kab cwppocvvns Koopely EavTas, p1 ev Trey- 


good texical authority. The explanation 
of Chrysost. and the Greek expositors, 
GpdiBoria (mictevay Btt AnWn, Theodo- 
ret), ‘hesitationes,’ Vulg. in Phil. /. c., 


Ow ve 

{Ac ouiso [cogitationes] Syr., ‘ tvei- 
flein,’ Goth., is perfectly satisfactory and 
in accordance with the proper meaning 
of the word; compare Plato, Avxioch. p. 
367 A, ppovrides..... Kal Siadoyiopol, and 
Clem. Rom. Cor. 1. 21, where it is in 
connection with éyyo@y; so also Clem. 
Alex. Strom. 1v. 17, quoting from Clem. 
Rom. On the alleged distinction between 
xwpis and &yev, see notes on Hph. ii. 12. 

9. doabtws K.7.A.] ‘(1 desire) like- 
wise that women also, in seemly guise, with 
shamefustness and discretion, do adorn 
themselves,’ ete. Omitting all evasive and 
virtually participial translations (comp. 
Conybeare) of the plain infinitive koo- 
ety, we have two constructions: we 
may either supply (a) merely BotaAoua, 
the infin. kooweiy being simply depend- 
ent on the supplied verb; or (b) BovAo- 
fat mpooevxecSat, the infinitival clause 
Koopey kK. T. A., being regarded as added 
‘per asyndeton’ (Mack), or with an ex- 
planatory foree (comp. De W.). The 
main objection to (a) is the less special 
meaning that must be assigned to éaav- 
tws; but compare Tit. iil. 3, and appy. 
Rom. viii. 26, where écavtws introduces 
a statement co-ordinate with, but not 
purely similar to, what precedes ; see also 
2 Mace. ii. 12. The objection to (b) is 
the singularly unconnected position of 
koouery : this is far less easy to surmount, 
for in all the instances hitherto adduced 
of unconnected infinitives (ch. v. 14, vi. 
18, Tit. iii. 1) the verbs all relate to the 
same subject, and the construction is easy 
and obvious. It seems best then to 
adopt (a), and to find the force of dcav- 
tws in the continued but implied (ver. 
11) reference to public prayers ; see Bp. 


Moller zn loc. Kal, moreover, has thus 
its full and proper ascensive force ; the 
women were not mere supernumeraries ; 
they also had their duties, as well as the 
men; these were sobriety of deportment 
and simplicity of dress, at al/ times, espe- 
cially at public prayers. It would seem 
almost as if the apostle intended only to 
allude to demeanor and dress at the lat- 
ter, but concluded with making the in- 
structions general. é€v KaTa- 
“in seemly guise:’ 
compare Tit. ii. 3, év KataoThmatt iepo- 
mpemeis, and see notes in loc.; not to be 
connected directly with koopety, but form- 
ing with pera cwppoo. x. 7.A. akind of 
adjectival predication to be appended to 
yuvaikas ; comp. Peile in loc, and see 
Matth. vi. 29, Tit.i.6. KataoroAy is 
not simply ‘dress’ (Liddell and Scott, 
Lex. s. v., Huther, al.), a meaning for 
which there is not satisfactory authority, 
but ‘deportment,’ as exhibited exter- 
nally, whether in look, manner, or dress ; 
see Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 
1655, and comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 8. 
4, kataoToAy Kal oxjua odparos, and 
especially Hippocr. de Dec. Habitu, 1. 26, 
where katacToAy is associated with raSe- 
dpa and mepiotoAH, thus apparently con- 
veying the idea of something outwardly 
cognizable, —external appearance as 
principally exhibited in dress ; comp. Syr. 
Lecads Lasd Lesavls [in 
oxhwart casto vestitus]: ‘guise’ thus 
perhaps approaches most nearly to the 
idea which the apostle intended to con- 
vey. We cannot (with De W.) cite the 
Vulg. ‘ habitus,’ as the following epithet 
(ornato) seems to show that the transla- 
tor referred it more definitely to ‘ ap- 
parel.’ It would seem then not improb- 
able that the glosses of Hesych. (kataor. 

mepiBorny) and Suidas (karaot.* oToAyv), 
and the use in later writers, e.g. Basil 


TTOAH Koopla| 


« 


rT a 


Cnkey LE 0, 


pacw Kal yput@ %) papyapitals 7) (waTicu@ TrodvTeNel, 


t TIMOTHY. 


51 


1D 2 Wh: 


0 mpémet yuvaréiv errayyeddopévals SeoséBeav, Ov Epywv ayaSav. 


(see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. 65), 
were suggested by a doubtful interpreta- 
tion of this passage. kooule| 
Only here and ch. iii. 2, and with the 
meaning, ‘ seemly,’ ‘becoming’? (compare 
Goth. ‘ hrainjai’), — not ‘ ornato,’ Vulg., 
Luther: see Suicer, Z'hesaur. s. vy. Vol. 
II. p. 147. 
scappoctyns| ‘shamefastness and dis- 
cretion ;’ the inward feeling which should 
accompany the outward bearing and de- 
portment: both terms are found united, 
Arrian, Epict. 1v. 8. Aidws (only here; 
Heb. xii. 28, cited by Trench, Synon. 
s. v, has but little critical support) marks 
the innate shrinking from anything un- 
becoming ;* cwpootvn (ch. ii. 15, Acts 
xxvi. 25), the ‘well-balanced state of 
mind resulting from habitual self-re- 
straint ;’ comp. 4. Macc. i. 31, owdpo- 


5 A A 
atdovus kal 


ovvn early emikpateia Tay emuuiay, More 
comprehensively, Plato, Republ. 1v. p. 
430 5, kal noovay tiwav Kal émidumiav 
eyxpar., similarly, Symp. p. 196 c, and 
more at length Aristotle, Hthics, 111. 13. 
Chrysostom is no less distinct, cwpoc. 
ov ToUTO pdvov eorTt Td Topvelas améxeo- 
Sat, GAAG kat To TaY AoITeY TadGv exTds 
eivot, on Tit. ii. 5, p. 822, see Trench, 
Synon. § 20, and for the most plausible 
translation, notes on Transl. It may be 
remarked that céppwy and its derivatives 
(except cwppoveiy, and, cwppootvn, Acts 
1. c.) cwppovicew, cwppovicuds, cwhpdvws, 
cwppocvvn, occur only in the Pastoral 
Epp This is one among many hints, 
afforded by the verbal characteristics of 
these three Epp., that they were written 
by one hand [St. Paul], and probably at 
no distant period from one another. 

Kh ev wA€ypacty] ‘not with plait- 
ings:’ special adornments both personal 
(wAéyu.) and put on the person (xpva@, 
Mapyap., iuatious) inconsistent with 
Christian simplicity ; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 3, 


eumAokh TpLxev, and see esp. Clem. Alex. 
Peedag. 111. 11. 62, Vol.1. p. 290 (Pott.), 
ai mepitAoKal TOV TpiX@v ai EraipiKat 
k. T.A., Where this and other kinds of 
personal decoration are fully discussed ; 
comp. Wakef. Sylv. Crit. Vol. 111. p. 
133. What Clement approves of is ava- 
detodou Tv Kdunv evTEAGS Tepdyy Tw 
ATH mapa thy adxéva apedrc? Sepameia 
ovvavéovoas (yuvatkly) eis KdAAOS yyhotov 
Tas céppovas kduas. On the subject gen- 
erally, see Smith, Dict. of Antig. Art. 
‘Coma,’ and the plates in Montfaucon, 
TL Antiqg. Expl. Vol. 111. p. 41, Suppl. 
Vol. 111. p. 44. The remarks 
of Beng. on this use of ui) are not satis- 
factory ; ov in peculiar forms of expres- 
sion is found after BovAoua, the regular 
and natural particle after verbs of ‘ will,’ 
is, however, of course wf; see exx. in 
Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 329 sq 

Kal xpva@l Scil. repidsecer xpvolwy, 1 
Pet. iii. 3; ear-rings, necklaces, brace- 
lets, comp. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 1x. 35. 

10. GAN’ b wpemer k.T.A.] ‘but, — 
which becometh women professing (not ‘ who 
profess,” Alf.) godliness.’ 'The construc- 
tion is slightly doubtful : 6? épyor ayasav 
may be joined with émayyeAa. (Vulg., 
Theod.); in which case the rel. 6 must 
be regarded as equivalent to év rovTa 6 
(Matth.), or cad’ 6’ (Huth.),—both some- 
what unsatisfactory explanations. It 
seems much more simple to connect 6” 
py. wy. with koopety (Syr., Theophyl.), 
and toregard 0 mpére: x. T. A. aS a common 
relatival opposition ; see Winer, Gr. § 
23.2, p. 143, note. The objection of 
Huther to kocuety— dia is not of mo- 
ment: épya ayaa were the medium of 
the xécuos; the prevenient and attend- 
ant graces of soul (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 3. ) 
were its actual constituents. éTwTay- 
yerAomévars] ‘ professing,’ ‘ profi- 
tentes,’ ‘ pre se ferentes,’ Justin. ; comp, 


1 TIMOTHY. Cnap. II. 11, 12. 


52 


A woman must learn and 
not teach, for two reasons ; 
she was second in respect of Tay ‘ 
creation, and first in respect 
of transgression. 


1 Turi ev jovyla pavSavétm év don vro- 
42 8 Py / be \ > > V4 
wdoKe Sé yuvalkt ovK érriTpémra, 


12. biddonew 5e yuv.] So Lachm. and Tisch., ed. 1, with ADFG; 10 mss. ; Vulg., 
Clarom., Goth., al.; Cypr., Ambrst., Jerome (much appr. by Griesb., De Wette, 
Huther, Wiesing.). It is difficult to understand what principle except that of oppo- 
sition to Lachm. has induced Tisch. (ed. 2,7) to adopt the reading of the Rec. ywu- 
vail be SiddoKnewv, with KL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Theod.-Mops., 
Chrys., Theod., Dam., al.; Ambr. (M/ill, Scholz, Alf.), when the uncial authority is 
thus noticeably weak, and the context so plainly favors the reading of the text. 
The de is not for yap (Syr.), and has certainly no ‘ vim copulativum ’ (= ‘ scilicet,’ 
Leo), but properly, and with its usual antithetical force, marks the opposition to 


pavSavéerw. 


ch. vi. 21, where this meaning is per- 
fectly clear. Huther compares Xenoph. 
Mem. 1. 2.7, apethy émayyedAcuevos, and 
Jenat. Ephes. 14, riotw emayyeAd.; add 
Philo, de Human. § 1, Vol. 11. p. 384 
(ed. Mang.), émayyeAdéTar Seov Sepa- 
metay, and see further exx. in Suicer, 
Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 1157. @ecoce- 
Bea, an am. Aeyou., scarcely differs in 
sense from evoéfeia, ver. 2; compare 
notes. 

ll. yuvi] ‘a woman,’ tv. e. any one 
of the class, or, in accordance with the 
idiom of our language (Brown, Gramm. 
of Gr. 11. 2. obs. 6, p. 220), ‘the woman,’ 
see notes on Lph. v. 23. 
év jovxia] ‘in quiet,’ scil. ‘ without 
speaking or attempting to teach in the 
Church:’ pdt deyyécdo, gnoly, év 
exkAnoia yurh, Chrys. 
havsavérea| ‘karn,’ i.e. at the public 
ministrations; in antithesis to ddack., 
yer. 12. It is obvious that the apostle’s 
previous instructions, 1 Cor. xiv. 31 sq., 
are here again in his thoughts The 
renewal of the prohibition in Concil. 
Carth. rv. Can. 99 (a. D. 398), would 
seem to show that a neglect of the apos- 
tolic ordinance had crept into the African 
Church. Women were permitted, how- 
eyer, to teach privately those of their own 
ser, ib. Can. 12; see Bingham, Antiq. 
xIV"445: év waon bTo- 
sayin] ‘in all subjection,’ 2. e. yielding it 


in all cases, not ‘in voller Unterord- 
nung,’ Huther; was being extensive rather 
than intensive: see notes on Eph. i. 8. 
On the position occupied by women in 
the early Church, it may be remarked 
that Christianity did not abrogate the 
primal law of the relation of woman to 
man. While it animated and spiritual- 
ized their fellowship, it no less definitely 
assigned to them their respective spheres 
of action; teaching and preaching to 
men, ‘mental receptivity and activity in 
family life to women,’ Neander, Planting, 
Vol. 1. p. 147 (Bohn). What grave ar- 
guments these few verses supply us with 
against some of the unnatural and un- 
scriptural theories of modern times. 

12. SidacKerv SG] Opposition to 
pavSaverw ver. 11, see critical note. Ar 
ddoKew is emphatic, as its position shows ; 
it does not, however, follow, as the Mon- 
tanists maintained from 1 Cor. xiv. 5, 
that a woman might mpopnrevew in pub- 
lic. Every form of public address or 
teaching is clearly forbidden as at vari- 
ance with woman's proper duties and 
destination: see Neander, Planting, 1. c. 
note. Wolf cites Democrates, Sentent. 
[ap. Gale, Script. Myth.] yovh ph aonetrw 
Aoyov, Sewdy yap. 


avSevteiv] ‘ to exercise dominion ; , 


ud > oO Mf 
Ss Cua So SoS, {audacter agere 


super] Syr.; not ‘to usurp authority,” 


Crap. II. 13, 14. 


ovde adSevrety avdpos, GAN’ eivat ev Hovyig. 


Tos emAaoSsn, eita Eda. 


‘Auth. Ver., a further meaning not con- 
tained in the word. Addevrety (Gm. Ac- 
you. in N. T.), found only in late and 
eccl. writers (Basil, Hpist. 52), involves 
the secondary and less proper meaning 
of aveévrns {Lobeck, Phryn. p. 120, but 
comp. Eur. Suppl. 442), scil. deordrns, 
avrodikns, Moeris; so Hesych. adSevreiy: 
étovoia¢eiv. The substantive avdevtia oc- 
curs 3 Mace. ii. 29; see Suicer, Thesaur. 
Vol. 1. p.573, where verb, adj., and subst. 
are explained and illustrated. The im- 
mediate context shows that the primary 
reference of the prohibition is to public 
ministration (Beng.) ; the succeeding ar- 
guments, however, demonstrate it to be 
On this 
subject see the brief but satisfactory re- 
marks of [arless, Hthik, § 52, note, p. 
279. GAN elvat x.T.A.] 
‘but to be in quiet, 7. e. in silence ;’ infin, 
dependant on BovAoua: or some similar 
verb (not keAevw, which St. Paul does not 
use), to be supplied from od émtpérw; 
so 1 Cor. xiv. 34; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 8, 
Herm. Soph. Electr. 72. This form of 
brachylogy occurs most commonly in 
the case of an antithesis (as here), intro- 
duced by an adversative conjunction, 
Jelf, Gr. § 895. h. The antithesis be- 
tween each member of this and of verse 
11 is very marked. 

13. "Adam yap] First confirmation 
of the foregoing command, derived from 
the Creation. The argument from pri- 
ority of creation, to be complete, requires 
the subsidiary statement in 1 Cor. xi. 9, 
ovK exTiodn avhp Sia Thy yuvatka, GAAG 
yuvn 51a Tov dv5pa: comp. Est. The re- 
marks of Reuss, 7/ié!. Chreét. Vol. 11. p. 
210, note, are unguarded ; there is here 
no ‘dialectique, Judaique,’ but a simple 
and direct declaration, under the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, of the typical 
meaning of the order observed in the 


also of universal application. 


ap MOVE Eb Y 


\ 
14 Kat 


53 


13° Adap yap mpe- 


"Adty ovK nTaTAS, 1) O& yun 


creation of man and wontan. 
éetmAadaady| ‘was formed, fashioned ;’ 
proper and specific word, as in Hesiod, 
Op. 70, ék yains mAdooe: comp. also 
Rom. ix. 20, and esp. Gen. ii. 7, @érAacey 
(TS) 6 Oeds roy dvSpwrov xoiv amd Tijs 
yiis : so Joseph. Antig. 1.1, 1. 

14. tat Adda] Second confirmation, 
deduced from the history of the fall: 
‘docet apostolus feminas oportere esse 
viris subjectas, quia et posteriores sunt 
in ordine et priores in culpa,’ Primas, 
cited by Cornel. a Lap. in loc. 
ovK Hrathan| There is no necessity 
whatever to supply ap@tos, Theodoret, 
Gicum. 1. The emphasis rests on ama- 
Adam was not directly deceived, 
Eve was; she says to God, 6 ddus qra- 
tnoé we; he only says, ality po @wkev 
We can 
hardly urge with Beng., ‘mulier virum 
non decepit sed ei persuasit, Gen. ili. 17,’ 
for it can scarcely be doubted that the 
woman did deceive the man (compare 
Chrys.), being in fact, in her very per- 
suasions, the vehicle of the serpent’s de- 
ceit : it is, however, the first entrance of 
sin which the apostle is specially regard- 
ing; this came by the means of the ser- 
pent’s amdtn; Eve directly succumbed to 


Tay. 


Gms tov EvAov, Kal Eparyov. 


it (dard yur. apxi) Guaptias, Ecclus. xxy. 
24), Adam only indirectly and deriva- 
tively, Hence observe in Gen. iii. the 
order of the three parties in the promul- 
gation of the sentence ; the serpent (ver. 
14), woman (ver. 16), man (ver. 17). 
According to the Rabbinical writers 
(Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 867), Eve was 
addressed, because it was very doubtful 
whether man would have yielded. 

éfamatndetoa| ‘being completely, pa- 
tently deceived.’ The reading, which is 
supported by AD'FG; 17, al. (Lachm., 
Tisch.), seems to confirm the foregoing 
explanation. To preclude apparently 


ot 


a / ee 
efatratyveica ev trapaBace yeyover, 


eae EON ble Mog 


CuHap, If 15. 


15 cwSynoetar bé Sia THS 


' Nt,” 3 / \ e n A 
Texvoyovias, EaV pelvwow €v TLOTEL KaL AYaTN Kal aylacHO peTa 


cwppocvvys. 
7 


any misconception of his meaning, the 
apostle adds a strengthened compound, 
which serves both to show that the mo- 
ment of thought turns on dmardw, and 
also to define tacitly the limitation of 
meaning under which it is used. The 
prep. é« here conveys the idea of comple- 
tion, thoroughness, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. 
vy. éx, Vol. 1. p. 820. ‘H yuvt is here 
clearly ‘the woman,’ i.e. Eve, not the 
sex generally (Chrysost.). ‘The generic 
meaning comes out in the next verse. 
Eye was the typical representative of the 
race. évy wapaBaoet 
yéyover] ‘became involved in transgres- 
ston,’ ‘ fell into transgression ;’ the constr. 
ylverSa ev oceurs occasionally (but not 
‘frequently ’ Huther) in the N. T. (e. 9. 
év aywvia, Luke xxii. 44; ev éxoracet, 
Acts xxii. 17; év dd&, 2 Cor. ili. 7; ev 
duoipart, Phil- ii. 7; €v Adyw koAarelas, 
1 Thess. ii. 5) to denote the entrance 
into, and existence in, any given state. 
On the distinction between «iva: (esse) 
and ylveoSau (existere et evenire), see 
Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 284, note. 

15. cwShoetat Se] ‘yet she shall 
be saved ;’ not merely ‘eripietur e noxa 
illa,’ (Beng.), but in its usual proper and 
scriptural sense, ‘ad vitam «ternam per- 
ducetur ;’ comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 
Vol. 11. p. 1206. The translation of 
Peile (founded on the tense), ‘shall be 
found to have been saved,’ is somewhat 
artificial ; see notes on Gal. ii. 16. The 
tense here only marks simple futurity. 
The nom. to cwSfoeTra is yuvh, in its 
generic sense; od ep) rijs Etvas en, 
GAAG Trep) TOD Kowod Tis Pvcews, Theod. 
This is confirmed by the use of the plural, 
day welvwow k. T.A-, see below. 
31a THS TEKVOYyovias| ‘by means of 
rue child-bearing.’ Setting aside all un- 
tenable or doubtful interpretations of 5:4 


(‘in’ Beza, ‘cum’ Rosenm.) and texvo- 
yovias (=tTéxva, Syriac; Td kata Ody 
|réxva] avaryareiv, Chrys., Fell, compare 
Stier, Red. Jes. Vol. 111. p. 13; ‘ matri- 
monium,’ Heinsius), we have two expla- 
nations ; (a) ‘by child-bearing ;’ by fulfil- 
ling her proper destiny and acquiescing 
in all the conditions of woman’s life, 
Beng., De Wette, Huther, al. ; compare 
Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 341 (Bohn): 
(B) ‘by the child-bearing, 2. e. by the rela- 
tion in which woman stood to the Mes- 
siah, in consequence of the primal pro- 
phecy that ‘her seed (not man’s) should 
bruise the serpent’s head’ (Gen. iii. 16), 
Hammond, Peile: ‘ the peculiar function 
of her sex (from its relation to her Sa- 
viour) shall be the medium of her salva- 
tion.’ This latter interpretation has but 
few supporters, and has even been said, 
though scarcely justly, to need no refu- 
tation (Alf.); when, however, we con- 
sider its extreme appropriateness, and 
the high probability that the apostle 
in speaking of woman’s transgression, 
would not fail to specify the sustaining 


‘prophecy which preceded her sentence ; 


—when we add to this the satisfactory 
meaning which 6:4 thus bears, — the un- 
circumscribed reference of gwShoetat 
(opp. De W., Alf.),—the force of the 
article (passed over by most expositors), 
—and, lastly, observe the coldness and 
jejuneness of (a), it seems difficult to 
avoid deciding in favor of (8): see the 
clear and satisfactory note of Hammond, 
and we may now add of Wordsw. in loc. 
é€av welvwory] ‘if they should continue,’ 
seil. af yuvatkes, or rather 7 yuvy, taken 
in its collective sense ; see Winer, Gr § 
58. 4, p. 458: a necessary limitation of 
the previous declaration; 4 texvoy. of 
itself could effect nothing. The plural 
is referred by Chrysost. and Syr. [as 


Gary EAs 


Qualifications of a bishop ; 
he must be of irreproacha- 


ITEM OW HY. 


5d 


III. ITvords 6 Novos el tus erisKoTrs ope- 


ble morals, a good father of his family, and of good report. 


shown by the mase. termination] to réxva, 
this is grammatically admissible (see 
Winer, Gr. § 67. 1, p. 555), but exegeti- 
cally unsatisfactory. On the use of éay 
with subjunctive (objective possibility ; 
‘experience will show whether they will 
abide’), see Hermann, de Partic. &y, 11. 
7, p. 97, and notes on Gal. i. 8. In ap- 
plying these principles, however, it must 
always be remembered that in the N. T. 
the use of éay with subj. has nearly en- 
tirely absorbed that of ef with the opt. ; 
see Green, Gr. p. 53. év 
miotet kal ay.] ‘in faith and love ;’ 
sphere in which they were to continue. 
On the union of these terms, and the 
omission, but of course virtual inclusion, 
of éAmtis, compare Reuss, Thél. Chrét. 
Iv. 22, Vol. rr. p. 259. iors here ap- 
propriately points, not to ‘eheliche Treue,’ 
Huth., but to faith in the cardinal prom- 
ise. 

holiness.’ 


kal aytaocual ‘and 
‘La sanctification est donc 
Vétat normal du croyant, Rom. vi. 22, 1 
Thess. iv. 3 sq.;’ Reuss. Theol. Chreét. 
1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 167. On cwopocdvn, 
see notes on ver. 9. 


Cuapter III. 1. miords 6 Ad- 
yos| ‘ Fuithful is the saying.’ ‘ Hac vel- 
uti preefatiunculad attentionem captat,’ 
Justin. Chrysostom refers this to what 
has preceeded (compare ch. iv. 9); the 
context, however, seems clearly to sug- 
gest that, as in ch. i. 15, the reference is 
to what follows. The reading avSpém- 
vos (1) and a few Lat. Vy.) is of course 
of no critical value, but is interesting as 
seeming to hint at a Latin origin. In 
ch.i. 15, ‘humanus’is found in a few 
Lat. Vy. (see Sabatier), where it was 
probably a reading, or rather gloss, ad 
sensim (hum.=benignus). From that 
passage it was ignorantly and unsuitably 
imported here into some Lat. Vy., and 


thence perhaps into the important Cod. 
Claromont. Charges of Latinisms 
(though by no means fully sustained), 
will be found in the Edinburgh Review, 
No. cxcr.; see Tregelles, Printed Text 
of N. T. p. 199 sq. éT1LG- 
komw7s| ‘office of a bishop. Without 
entering into any discussion upon the 
origin of episcopacy generally, it seems 
proper to remark that we must fairly ac- 
knowledge with Jerome (just. 73, ad 
Ocean. Vol. 1v. p. 648), that in the Pas- 
toral Epp. the terms éionxoros and mpec- 
Bétepos are applied indifferently to the 
same persons; Pearson, Vind. Jgn. x11. 
p. 585 (A.C. L.), Thorndike, Gov. of 
Churches, 111. 3, Vol. 1. p. 9 (ib.). The 
first was borrowed from the Greeks (oi 
map’ ASnvalous «is Tas bmnkdous méAeEts 
emuTkepardat Ta Tap’ ExdoTos TeuUTOMEVoL, 
Snidas, s. v. éwiox., Dion. Hal. Antiq. 
11. 76; see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v11. 2. 2, 
and exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 293), 
and pointed to the office on the side of 
its duties: the second, which marked 
primarily the age of the occupant, was 
taken from the Jews (Hamm. on Acts xi. 
30), and pointed to the office on the side 
of its yravity and dignity ; comp. 1 Peter 
y. 1, and see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 
p- 143 (Bohn). While this cannot be 
denied, it may be fairly urged on the 
other hand,— (1) that the icodvvauia of 
the two words in the N. T. appears of 
this kind, that while mpeoBirepos, con- 
jointly with exicromos, refers to what was 
subsequently the higher order, it is rarely 
used in the N. T. (comp. James v. 14 ?) 
to denote specially what was subsequently 
the lower; comp. Hammond, Dissert. 
Iv. 6, Vol. tv. p. 799 sq. ; to which may 
be added that in the second century no 
one of the lower order was ever termed 
an émloxomos (Pearson, Vind. Jyn. ch. 
X111. 2); and (2) that there are indelible 


56 


yeTal, KaXOD Epryou eémiSupel. 


traces in the N. T. of an office (by what- 
ever name called, ayyeAos, x. 7. A.) which, 
possibly, first arising from a simple zpo- 
edpia in a board of mpecBuTepa (comp. 
Jerome on Tit. i. 5, Vol. rv. p. 413, ed. 
Ben.) grew under apostolic sanction and 
by apostolic znstetution into that of a sin- 
gle definite rulership ‘ over a whole body 
ecclesiastical ;’ see esp. Blunt, Sketch of 
the Church, Serm. 1. p. 7 sq., and comp. 
Saravia, de Divers. Grad. ch. x. p. 11 
sq. We may conclude by observing 
that the subsequent official distinction 
between the two orders (traces of which 
may be observed in these Epp.) has no- 
where been stated more ably than by Bp. 
Bilson, as consisting in two prerogatives 
of the bishop, ‘ singularity in succeeding, 
and superiority in ordaining,’ Perpet. 
Gov. x11. p. 334 sq. Oxf. 1842). Of 
the many treatises written on the whole 
subject, this latter work may be espe- 
cially recommended to the student. Bil- 
son is, indeed. as Pearson (Vind. Ign. 
ch. 111.) truly says, ‘ vir magni in eccle- 
sid nominis.’ dpévyeTrat| 
‘ seeketh after :’ there is no idea of ‘am- 
biticus seeking’ (De W.) couched in this 
word: it seems only to denote the defi- 
nite character, and perhaps manifesta- 
tion, of the desire, the ‘stretching out of 
the hands to receive,’ whether in a good 
(Heb. xi. 16), or in a bad (chap. vi. 10) 
application ; compare Wieseler, Chronol. 
p- 301, note. 


? 


épyov] ‘work :’ 
not ‘bonam rem,’ Castal., but definitely 
‘function,’ ‘ occupation ;* comp. 2 Tim. 
iv. 5, and see notes on Eph. iv. 12. On 
the subject of this and the following 
yerses, see a discourse by Bp. Kennett 
(Lond. 1706). 

2. oy] ‘then ;’ continuation slightly 
predominating over retrospect ; comp. 
Donalds. Gr. § 604. The proper collec- 
tive sense of this particle (Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p.717) may, however, be clearly 


YTS OPET : 


Cuap. III. 2. 


9 5 an X St 7 > r 
€l OUVY TOV E€ETTLOKOTTOVY AVETTI- 


traced in the refererfce to the foregoing 
words, Kkadod &pyouv: so acutely Bengel, 
‘bonum negotium bonis committendum.’ 
Toy émickomoy] ‘every bishop’ or (ac- 
cording to our idiom) ‘a bishop ;’ the 
article is not due so much to the impli- 
cation of érick. in émoxomjs (ver. 1; 
comp. Green, Gr. p. 140), as to the ge- 
neric way in which the subject is pre+ 
sented; comp. Middleton, Art. 111. 2. 1, 
notes on Gal. iii. 20. 

Huther here calls attention to two facts 
in relation to emick. (1) That except 
here and Tit. i, 7, St. Paul only uses the 
term once, Phil. i. 1; we ought perhaps 
to add Acts xx. 28: (2) That the singu- 
lar is used here, and still more noticea- 
bly in Tit. 1. ec. where mpeoBirepor had 
just preceded. Of these two points, (1) 
seems referable to a later date, as well 
as to the different subject of these Epp. ; 
(2) to the desire of the apostle to give 
his instructions their broadest application 
by this generic use of the article. 


avewlAnumTov| ‘ 


irreproachable ; * 
‘inreprehensibilem,’ Vulgate, Clarom. ; 
tpueumrov, akatayvworov, Hesych., There 
seems no authority for regarding avemin. 
as ‘an agonistic term’ (Blomf., Peile) ; 
it appears only used in an ethical sense, 
as ‘qui nullum in agendo locum dat rep- 
rehensionis’ (Tittm.; wy mapéxwy Kare- 
yoplas apopuiv, Schol. Thucyd. vy. 17), 
and differs from a@ueurtos as implying, 
not ‘qui non reprehenditur,’ but ‘ qui 
non dignus est reprehensione, etiamsi 
reprehendatur ;’ see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 
380. Hence its union with &omaAos, ch. 
vi. 14, and with kaSapdés, Lucian, Pisce. 
8; comp. Polyb. Hist. xxx. 7. 6, where, 
however, the sense seems simply priva- 
tive: see further exx. in Elsner, and 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 

mias yuvatkds &vdpal ‘a husband 
of one wife.’ These much-contested 
words have been explained in three ways § 


Cuap. III. 2. 


RE TM OVE ELY : 


57 


5 a \ ” 5 } , r 
AneTTOY Eival, MLAs yvVAaLKOS avopa, vnhadLorv, cwPpova, KOT LLOV, 


(a) in reference to any deviation from 
morality in respect of marriage, ‘ whether 
by concubinage, polygamy, or improper 
second marriages’ [comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2], 
Matthies; so appy. Theodoret, roy md 
udvyn yuvarl cuvocodyta swppdves: (b) 
contemporaneous polygamy, which at that 
time still seems to have prevailed among 
the Jews, Joseph. Ant. xvi. 1. 2, mdr- 
plov yap ev TaUTS mAcloow july cvvoiKely ; 
Justin Mart. Trypho, § 134: so Calvin, 
Bengel, al.: (c) successive polygamy, 
whether (a) specially, after divorce, 
Hamm., Suicer (Thesaur. s. v. dvyaula) ; 
or (8) generally, after loss of first wife, 
however happening, Fell, and appy. Huth., 
Wiesing., al. Of these (a) is clearly too 
undefined ; (b) is in opposition to the 
corresponding expression in ch. y. 9; 
(c, a) is plausible, but when we consider 
the unrestrictedness of the formula, — 
the opinions of the most ancient writers 
(Hermas, Past. Mand. trv., Tertull. de 
Monogam. cap. 12, Athenagoras, Legat. 
p. 37, ed. Morell, 1636, Origen, in Lu- 
cam, xvit. Vol. 111. p. 953, ed. Delarue ; 
see Heydenr. p. 166 sq., Coteler’s note 
on Herm. /. c.),— the decisions of some 
councils, e. g. Neoces. (A. p. 314) Can. 
3, 7, and the guarded language of even 
Laod. (A. p. 363%) Can. 1,—the hint 
afforded by paganism in the case of the 
woman (‘ univira’),— and lastly, the pro- 
priety in the particular cases of éricxomot 
and didkovor (ver. 8) of a greater temper- 
ance (mox ynddAtoy, cSppova) and a man- 
ifestation of that rep) roy Eva yduov ceuvd- 
tns (Clem. Alex. Strom. 111.1, Vol. 1. p. 
511, Potter), which is not unnoticed in 
Scripture (Luke ii. 36, 37), we decide in 
favor of (c, B),.and consider te apostle to 
declare the contraction of a second mar- 
riage to be a disqualification for the office 
of an érickomos, or didkovos. The position 
of Bretschn., that the text implies a bish- 
op should be married (so Maurice, Unity,. 

8 


p- 632], does not deserve the confutation 
of Winer, Gr. § 18. 9, p. 107, note. 
ynpdadAcrov] ‘sober,’ —either in a meta- 
phorical sense {céppwy, Suidas), as the 
associated epithets and the use of vppw 
in good Greek (e. g.) Xenoph. Conviv. 
vi1i- 21) will certainly warrant, or per- 
haps more probably (as 4} mdpowor, ver. 
3, is not a mere synonym, see notes) in 
its usual and literal meaning. Nadew 
(ypnyopetv, cwppoveiv Biw, Hesych.) in- 
deed occurs six times in the N. T. (1 
Thess. v. 6, 8,/2) Limttiv; 51 Bet: i. 13, 
iv. 7, v. 8), and in all, except perhaps 1 
Thess. /. c., is used metaphorically ; as 
however the adj. both in ver. 11 (see 
notes) and appy. Tit. ii. 2 is used in its 
literal meaning, it seems better to pre- 
serve that meaning in the present case ; 
so De W., but doubtfully, for see ib. on 
Tit, 1. c. Under any circumstances the 
derivative translation ‘ vigilant,’ Auth. 
Ver. (d:eynyepuevos, Theodoret), though 
possibly defensible in the verb (see Etym. 
M. s. v. vipew), is needlessly and doubt- 
fully wide of the primary meaning: on 
the derivation see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 5. 
caédpova, Kdapmtov| ‘sober-minded or 
discreet, orderly.’ The second epithet 
here points to the outward exhibition of 
the inward virtue implied in the first,— 
ote cal Sid ToD chuatos palveoSat THY 
Ths Wuxis cwppocvynv, Theodoret : see 
notes on chap. ii. 9. On @uAdtevoy, see 
notes on Tit. i. 8. didaKkTiKdy| 
‘apt to teach,’ Auth. Ver., ‘lehrhaftig,’ 
Luther ; not only ‘able to teach’ (The- 
od.; comp. Tit: i. 9), but, in accordance 
with the connection in 2 Tim. ii. 24, 
‘ready to teach, ‘skilled in teaching,’ 


o Ma 
= [doctor) Syr. ; 7d 5& pddiora 


xapaxthpicoy tov éemiekoroy Td diddoKew 
éorly, Theophyl.; see Suicer, Thesaur. 
s. y. Vol. 1. p. 900, comp. Hofmann,, 
Schrift. Vol. 11. 2, p- 253. On the qual- 


58 1 TIM 


pirotevov, SidaKTLKor, 
apwayov, apidapyupor, 


4 vy 2 ig A \ / , 
TEKVA EXOVTA EV UTOTAY)) META TTACNS DELVOTHTOS, 


itative termination -xés, see Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 254, p. 454. 

3. mdpotvoy] ‘violent over wine,’ Tit. 
i. 7; not simply synonymous with pfao- 
voy or with olvw moAA@ mpocéxovTa, ch. 
iii. 8 (Ziegler, de Episc. p. 350), but in- 
cluding drunkenness and its manifesta- 


tions : so Loess Syr. SN pos 
sti | wine,’ 


see not ‘ sectator vini,’ Schaaf; 
see Michaelis in Cast. Lex., and compare 
Heb. x. 28]; comp. Chrys., rbv tBpic- 
thy, Tov avaddn, who, however, puts too 
much out of sight the origin, oivos: 
comp. tapoivos Arist. Acharn. 981, and 
the copious lists of eXamples in Krebs, 
Obs. p. 852, Loesner, Obs. p. 396. The 
simple «state is marked by peduvaos (1 
Cor. v. 11, vi. 10), the exhibitions of it 
by mdpowos ; Td wapowety ek ToD pmedvew 
ylyvera, Athen. x. § 62, p. 444. 

mAhKT HY] ‘a striker, Tit. i. 7; one of 
the specific exhibitions of rapowia. Chrys- 
ost. and Theodoret (comp. also Kypke, 
Obs. Vol. 11. p- 356) give this word too 
wide a reference (wAATTew Tay adeAPav 
Its connection both 
here and in Tit. /. c. certainly seems to 
suggest the simple and strict meaning ; 
see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v Vol. 11. p. 751, 
where both meanings are noticed. 

émietkh, &pmaxor] ‘ forbearing, not con- 
téntious, Tit. iii. 2, but in a reversed 
order; generic opposites to the two pre- 
ceding terms. The force of émeuhs is 
here illustrated by the associated adj. ; 
the &uaxos is the man who is not aggres- 
sive (Beng. on Tit lI. c.) or pugnacious, 
who does not contend; the émeuchs goes 
further, and is not only passively non- 
contentious, but actively considerate and 
forbearing, waving even just and legal 


‘a transgressor over 


Thy ovveldnow). 


redress, éAartwtikbs kalrep exwv Toy _ 


OTHY 


\ 


Cuap. IIL. 3 —5, 


ss / / 
% 1) TWApOLVOV, [17 TWANKTHY, GAN EmrLEiKh, 
4 rod idlov olxov Kah@s TpoicTdpevor, 


5 (eb O€ Tus 


vouov Bonsdv, Aristot. Nicomach. Eth. v. 
14 The latter word is also illustrated 
by Trench, Synonyms, § 43, but observe 
that the derivation is not from ef«w, but 
from eixds ; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 
apiriapyupor] ‘not a lover of money ;’ 
only here and Heb. xiii. 5. This epithet 
is not under the vinculum of aAAd, but is 
co-ordinate with the first two negatived 
predicates, and perhaps has a retrospec- 
tive reference to pAdtevov (Theophyl.). 
On the distinction between g:Aapyupia 
(‘avarice’) and mdAcovetia (‘ covetous- 
ness’), see Trench, Synon. § 24. 

4. idfov| emphatic, and 
in prospective antithesis to ©cov, ver. 5 
On the use of YSvos in the N. T., see notes 
on Eph. v, 22, and on its derivation (from 
pronoun 7), comp. Donaldson Cratyl. § 
139, 152. éy bToTay7H is 
not to be connected closely with @ovra 
(Matth.), but appended to éxovra réxva, 
and is thus a kind of adjectival clause, 
specifying the moral sphere in which 
they were to move: see Tit, i. 6, comp. 
1 Tim. ii. 9, Matth. vi. 29, al. If the 
part. had been used, though the meaning 
would have been nearly the same, the 
idea presented to the mind would have 
been different : in the one case subjection 
would have been noticed as a kind of at- 
tribute, in the present case it is represent- 
ed as the moral element with which they 
were surrounded. The transition from 
actual (Luke vii. 25) to figurative environ- 
ment (Matth. /. c.), and thence to deport- 
ment (ch. 11.9), or, as here, to moral con- 
ditions seems easy and natural. meta 
mdons K.7.A.| ‘ with all gravity :’ closely 
connected with éor., specifying the atten- 
dant grace with which their obedience was 
to be accompanied ; see notes on ch. ii. 2. 

5. ef 6€...0uK ofde] ‘but if any 
man knows not (how) ;’ contrasted paren- 


‘his own ;’ 


4 


Cur. III. 6. 


1 TIMOTHY. 59 


n° , 4 : A L a > Shae a , 
Tod (diov olkov mpooThvat ovK oidev, TAS exKANolas Oeod ErripEXs)- 


A 6 \ , ov \ % ‘ > cal : Sergey a 
geTAL 3) pay veoduTov, wa pn Tudwreis eis Kplwa eEuTréeon TOU 


thetical clause (Winer, Gr. § 53. 2, p. 
401) serving to establish the reasonable- 
ness and justice of the requisition, tov 
éStov k T. A.3, the argument, as Huther 
observes, is ‘a minori ad majus.’ Ay 
is perhaps scarcely necessary to remark 
that there is no irregularity in the pres- 
ent use of ef ov: ‘ od arctissime conjungi 
cum verbo [not always necessarily a 
verb; compare Schexfer, Demosth. Vol. 
Ill. p 288] debet, ita ut hoc verbo con- 
junctum unam notionem constituat, cu- 
jusmodi est ov« oida nescio,’ Hermann, 
Viger, No. 309. This seems more sim- 
ple than to refer it here, with Green, ( Gr. 
p- 119), to any especial gravity or ear- 
nestness of tone. ‘The use of e od in the 
N T. is noticeably frequent; see exx. 
in Winer, Gr. § 59 6, p. 568 sq., and 
for a copious list of exx., principally 
from later writers, Gayler, Part. Neg. v. 
p. 99 sq. emimednoeTat| 
‘can he take charge ;’ ethical future, in- 
volving the notion of ‘ability,’ ‘ possi- 
bility ;’? mas Suvjoera, Chrysost.; see 
Winer, Gr § 40. 6, p. 250, Thiersch, 
de Pent. 111. 11. d, p. 159, and notes on 
Gal. vi. 5. Similar uses of érmedcioSau, 
“curam gerere,’ scil. ‘ saluti alicujus pros- 
piscere’ Bretschn. ; comp. Luke x. 35), 
are cited by Raphel in loc. 

6 wh vedputTor| ‘not a recent con- 
vert,’ (Tov veoxathxntov, Chrys., Tov ev- 
Svs memotevedta, Theodoret), rendered 
somewhat paraphrastically in Syriac 


mn oO > 
a psoso2 iz [puer discipulatu suo’): 
the word is copiously illustrated by Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 394. This and 
the following qualification are not speci- 
fied in the parallel passage, Tit. i. 6 sq. : 
there is, howeyer, surely no reason for 
drawing from the present restriction any 
unfavorable inferences against the au- 
thenticity of this Ep.; see Schleierm. 


uber 1 Tim. p 46. If the later date of 
the Ep. be admitted, Christianity would 
have been long enough established at 
Ephesus to make such a regulation nat- 
ural and easy to be complied with: see 
Wiesing. in loc. tTupwdeis] 
‘ besotted, or clouded, with pride ;’ only 


here, ch. vi. 4, and 2 Tim. iii. 4. Both 


the derivation [OYTI-, 7¥¢w, Benfey, Vol. 
II. p. 275, less probably rupws, Harpocr. 
175, 16] and the combinations in which 
tupdw is used (e. g. Polyb. Hist. 111. 81. 
1, ayvoet Kat tetUpwTar; sim. Demosth. 
Fals. Leg. 409, paivouat rat teTUpwpar ; 
ib. Phil. 111. 116, Anpety kad TeTUpGoSau 5 
Lucian, Megrin. 1, avohtov te Kat retv- 
pwuévou, etc.) seem to show that the idea 
of a ‘beclouded’ and ‘stupid’ state of 
mind must be associated with that of 
pride. Obnubilation, however produced, 
seems the primary notion ; that produced 
by pride or vanity (kevodofjocas, Coray) 
the more usual application: so Hesy- 
chius, TUdos’ GAaCovia, €rapots, cevodotta : 
comp. Philo, Migr. Abrah. § 24, Vol. 1. 
p. 457 (ed. Mang.), régov kal aradevotas 
Kal aAaCovelas yéeuovtes. 

Kptpa Tov S:aBdArAov| ‘judgment of 
the devil. The meaning of these words 
is somewhat doubtful. As xpiua, though 
never per se anything else than judicium, 
will still admit of some modification in 
meaning from the context (comp. Fritz. 
Rom. ii. 83, Vol. 1. p 94), d:aBdAov may 
be either (a) gen. subjecti, ‘the accusing 
judgment of the devil ’ (Matth., Huther) ; 
or (b) gen. object, ‘ the judgment passed 
upon the devil.’ In the former case 
kptua has more the meaning of ‘ crimina- 
tio’ (Beza), in the latter of ‘condemna- 
tio’ (Coray, al.). As the gen. d:aB0Aov 
in the next verse is clearly subjecti, in- 
terpr. (a) is certainly very plausible. 
Still as there is no satisfactory instance 
of an approach to that meaning in the 


60 1 TIMOTRY. 


dvaBorov. 7 


Cuar. III. 7, 8. 


al \ lal 
del 6€ Kal paptupiay Kady exew ard Tov wer, 


v4 \ > > \ > / A f fal , 
iva pn els ovevdicpov eurréon Kat Tayida tov diaBonov. 


The deacons must also 

be similarly irreproachable, 
and of good report ; the dea- 
conesses too must be faith- 
ful. 
N. T.— as xpiya seems naturally to point 
to God (Rom. ii. 2), as it is elsewhere 
found only with a gen. objecti (Rom. iii. 
8, Rev. xvii. 1; xviii. 20 is a peculiar 
use),— and as the position of tod diaf. 
does not seem here to imply so close a 
union between the substantives as in ver. 
7, we decide, with Chrys. and nearly all 
the ancient interpreters, in favor of (b), 
or the genitive objecti. Matthies urges 
against this the excess of lapse which 
would thus be implied; the force of the 
allusion must, however, be looked for, 
not in the extent of the fall, but in the 
similarity of the circumstances : the devil 
was once a ministering spirit of God, but 
by insensate pride fell from his hierarchy; 
comp. Jude 6, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 
didBodros, Vol. 1. p. 851. On the mean- 
ing and use of di¢8. see notes on Eph. 
iv. 27; the translation ‘ calumniatoris ’ 
(Grinf., al.) is not consistent with its use 
in the N. T. 

7. 6@ nai] ‘ But, instead of being a 
veoputos, one of whose behavior in his 
new faith little can be known, he must 
also have a good testimony (not only 
from those within the Church, but) from 
those without.’ 
amo Tay €EwSer] ‘from those with- 
out;’ the prep. certainly not implying 
‘among’ (Conyb.), but correctly mark- 
ing the source from which the testimony 
emanates: on the distinction between amd 
and mapd, esp. with verbs of ‘ receiving,’ 
see Winer, Gr. § 47. a, p. 331, note. 
Oi ewSev (in other places of gw, 1 Cor. 
Woylewets, Cel. av, 5, 1 Thess, iv: 12); 
like the Jewish p»p4x"45, is the regular 
designation for all not Christians, all 
those who were not oiketo: tis micrews ; 


see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 198, and the 


* Avakovous @catTws ceuvovs, 2) SiAGyoUS, 
Hi) Ov TOAAD TpocéxovTas, pun) alacypoKEpoets, 


Rabbinical citations in Schoettg. Hor. 
(on Cor. /. c.) Vol. 1. p. 600. 
dvetdtapov «.7.A]| ‘reproach, and 
(what is sure to follow) the snare of the 
devil,’ the absence of the article before 
maryida being perhaps due to the preposi- 
tion ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. p. 114. 
The exact connection is somewhat doubt- 
ful as the gen. may depend (a) on both, 
or (b) only on the’ last of the two sub- 
stantives. The omission of the prepo- 
sition before rayida (De W.) is an argu- 
ment in favor of (a); the isolated posi- 
tion, however, of dved. and the connec- 
tion of thought in ch. y. 14, 15, seem to 
preponderate in favor of (b), évei5. being 
thus absolute, and referring to ‘the re- 
proachful comments and judgment,” 
whether of those without (Chrys.) or 
within the Church. On the termination 
-(«)uos (action of the verb preceding 
from the subject) and its prevalence in 
later Greek, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 511; 
comp. Donaldson Cratyl. § 253, p. 420. 
The expression mayls rov 5108. occurs 
again 2 Tim. ii. 26; so similarly 1 Tim. 
vi.9. It is here added to oveid., not epex- 
egetically (7d eis oxdvdarov mpoxeiodat 
ToAA@y taryis éoTt Sia8., Theophyl.) but 
rather as marking the temptations that 
will be sure to follow the loss of charac- 
ter; ‘quid spei restat ubi nullus est pec- 
candi pudor ?’ Caly. 

8. d1axdvovs| ‘deacons ;’ only used 
again by St. Paul in this special sense 
Phil. i. 1, and (fem.) Romans xvi. 1, 
though appy. alluded to Rom. xii. 7, I 
Cor. xii. 28, and perhaps 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
The office of Sidkovos (Siqxw Buttman 
Eeril. § 40), originally that of an almoner 
of the Church (Acts vi. 1 sq.), gradually 
developed into that of an assistant (&yr- 


? 


Cuap. Iii. 9. 


1 TIMOTHY. 61 


yy b «f fol i DJ A l4 
9 €yovTas TO pvoTHpLoy THs TicTews ev KaSapa ouveldyjcel. 


Afwes, 1 Cor. J. c.) and subordinate to 
the presbyters (Rothe, Anfdange, § 23, p. 
166 sq.) : their fundamental employment, 
however, still remained to them; hence 
the appropriateness of the caution, my 
aicxpoxepdeis, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 
p. 34 sq. (Bohn). On the duties of the 
office, see esp. Bingham, Antiq. Book 11. 
20. 1 sq., Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. 
p. 869 sq., and Thomassin, Discipl. Eccl. 
Part 1. 2. 29 sq. 
“in like manner,’ as the foregoing class 
included im the toy éwickomoy, ver. 2: it 
was not to be as érépws (Arist. Elench. 
Soph. 7) in any of the necessary qualifi- 
cations for the office of a deacon, but 
&ocavtws as in the case of the bishops. 
It need scarcely to be added that the de? 
elvat of the preceding verses must be sup- 
plied in the present member. 

dtAdyous] ‘ doudle-tongued,‘ Auth. Ver. 
‘speaking doubly,’ Syr.: drat Aeydu. ; 
mentioned in Poll. Onomast. 11. 118. 
The meaning is rightly given by Theo- 
doret, €repa pev mwovTw Erepa Se exeivw 
Aé€yovres. Grinfield (Schol. Hell.) com- 
pares 8iyAwacos, Prov. xi. 13, Barnab. 
Epist. 19: add S:xeuvdos Eurip. Orest. 
890. mpocéxorvTas| 
“giving (themselves) up to;’ mpooéxew 
thus used is more commonly found with 
abstract nouns, e.g. avayvéoe, ch. iv. 
Here, how- 
ever, olvos moAds (and so probably Svor- 
actnpiov, Heb. vii. 13. comp. SdAacoa, 
Plut. Thess. 17) approaches somewhat 
to the nature of an abstract noun. This 
verb is only used by St. Paul in the Pas- 
toral Epp.; comp., however, Acts xx. 
28. alicxporepdets| 
‘greedy of base gains;’ only here. and 
Tit. i. 7. The adverb occurs 1 Pet. v. 
2. As in all these cases the term is in 
connection with an office in the Church, 
it seems most natural (with Huther) to 
refer it, not to gains from unclean (com- 


< U 
aoavtTws| 


13, dicctoovvyn, Job xxvii. 6. 


pare Syr.) or disgraceful actions (Theo- 
dor.), but to dishonesty with the alms of 
the Church, or any abuse of their spirit- 
ual office for purposes of gain; compare 
Ditein di 

9. Exovras| ‘having, or (in the 
common ethical sense, Crabb, Synon. p. 
252, ed. 1826) ‘ holding,’ Auth. Version, 
‘behaltend,’ De Wette : not for karéxov- 
vas, Grot., a meaning more strong than 
the context requires and the use of the 
simple form will justify; see notes on 
ch. i. 19. The emphasis falls on ev kad. 
cuved., not on the participle, 
To pvot., THS Tiotews]| ‘the mys: 
tery of the fuith.” Owing to the different 
shades of meaning which wvorhpiov bears, 
the genitive in connection with it does 
not always admit the same explanation ; 
see notes on Eph.i. 9, iii. 4, vi.19. Here 
miotews is apparently a pure possessive 
gen. ; it was not merely that about which 
the wvor. turned (gen. objecti, Eph. i. 9), 
nor the subject of it (gen. of content ; 
this would tend to give riotis an objec- 
tive meaning, comp. exx. in Bernhardy, 
Synt. 111. 44, p. 161), nor exactly the 
substance of the wvor. (genitive materia, 
Eph. iii. 4), but rather that to which the 
pvothpioy appertained: the truth, hith- 
erto not comprehensible, but now reveal- 
ed to man, was the property, object, of 
faith, that on which faith exercised itself. 
So very similarly ver. 16, 7d wvor. tis 
evoeBelas, ‘the mystery which belonged 
to, was the object contemplated by, god- 
liness ; the hidden truth which was the 
basis of all practical piety ; see Tittmann, 
Synon. 1. p. 147, and Reuss, Theol. 1v. 
9, Vol. 11. p. 89. Torts is faith consid- 
ered subjectively ; not objective faith (* doc- 
trina fidei’), a very doubtful meaning in 
the N. T.: see notes on Gal. i. 24. On 
the meaning of uverhpiov, see Sanderson, 
Serm. 9 (ad Aul.), Vol. 1. p. 227 (Ja- 
cobs.), and the notes on Hph. v. 82. 


62 1 TIMOTHY 


Cuap. III, 10, 11. 


a = 
10 Kai obtou Sé SoxipatécSwcayv TpOTov, cita SvaKoveitwoay avéey- 


” 
KANTOL OVTES. 


év kaXapa@ ouvetd.| Emphatic; de- 
fining the ‘ratio habendi,’ and in close 
connection with the part.: the KaSapa 
cuveidjioet was to be, as it were, the 
ensphering principle, see 2 Tim. i. 13. 
On ovveid. see notes on ch. i. 5. 

10. «al o&rou 8é] And these also, 
“and these moreover, ; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 
12, wat mdytes Se of SéAovtTes K.T:A; 
These words (appy. not elewrly under- 
stood by Huther) admit only of one ex- 
planation. In the formula cal—é¢, like 
the Latin ‘ et—vero,’ or the ‘ et—autem’ 
of Plautus (see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1. p. 
588), while each particle retains its proper 
force, both together often have ‘ notionis 
quandam consociationem;’ see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p.645. Thus while rat 
connects or enhances, and 6€ contrasts, 
the union of the two frequently causes 
dé to revert from its more marked, to its 
primary and less marked oppositive force, 
‘in the second place’ (comp. Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 155), so that the whole formula 
has more of an adjunctive character, and 
only retains enough of a retrospective 
opposition to define more sharply, ex- 
pand, or strengthen, the tenor of the pre- 
ceding words. Speaking roughly we 
might say, ‘xal conjungit, 5¢ intendit ;’ 
the true rationale, however, of the con- 
struction is best seen when wey is found 
in the preceding clause, e. g. Xenophon 
Cyrop. vit. 1. 30, compare Acts iii. 22, 
24. The formula then may be translated 
with sufficient accuracy, ‘and —also,’ 
“and —too,’ the translation slightly va- 
rying according as the copulative or ascen- 
sive force of kat is most predominant. 
In Homer xa} 5¢ is found united, in sub- 
sequent writers one or more words are 
interpolated ; see Hartung, Partik. 6é, 5. 
2, 3, Vol. 1. p. 181 sq., Liicke on 1 John 
i. 3, and comp. Matth. Gr.§ 616. St. 
Paul’s use of it is not confined to these 


11 yuvaixas @cavTws ceuvds, p17 diaBoXovs, vypa- 


Epp. (Huther), for see Rom. xi. 23. It 
is used indeed by every writer in the N. 
T. except St. James and St. Jude, prin- 
cipally by St. Luke and St. John, the 
latter of whom always uses it with em- 
phasis; in several instances, however 
(e.g. Luke x. 8, John vi. 51), owing 
probably to ignorance of its true mean- 
ing, MSS. of some authority omit 6¢. 
doxipaléacdwoaar] ‘it them be proved,’ 
not, formally, by Timothy or the elder- 
hood (De W. compares Constit. Apost. 
vitr. 4), but generally by the commu- 
nity at large among which they were to 
minister. The qualifications were prin- 
cipally of a character that could be re- 
cognized without any formal investiga- 
tion. aveyKAntot bytes] 
“being unaccused,’ ‘ having no charge laid 
against them,’ i. e. provided they are found 
so: conditional use of the participle 
(Donalds. Gr. § 505) specifying the lim- 
itations and conditions under which they 
were to undertake the duties of the office ; 
comp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207. 5. On 
the distinction between avéyxAntos (‘ qui 
non accusatus est’ ( and dvemlAnumzos 
(‘in quo nulla justa causa sit reprehen- 
sionis’), see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 31, and 
comp, Tit. 1. 6: 

ll. yuvaikas woadtws| ‘women 
in like manner when engaged in the sime 
office.’ It is somewhat difficult to~ de- 
cide whether, with the Greek commenta- 
tors, we are here to understand by yuvai- 
Kas (a) wives of the deacons, Auth Ver , 
Coray, Huth., and as dependant in strue- 
ture on éxovtas, Bengel; or (b) deucon- 
esses proper, yuvaires being used rather 
than Sidcovo. (fem.), Rom. xvi. 1. to 

‘prevent confusion with masc. The other 
possible interpr. ‘wives of deacons aid 
éexion.’ (Beza, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 809) 
does not suit the context, which turns 
only on didkovor; obs. ver. 12. Huther 


Cuap. III. 12, 13. 


Alous, TMicTas eV TacwW. 


1G al Gh Ok ORs Was OR Ge 


63 


12 ju 4 of : oA N ” 
AKOVOL EOTWOADV las YUVQALKOS AV- 


, fal a / \ fal yh v 13 2: \ 
dpes, TEKVMV KANWS T POloTAMEVOL Kal TMV LOLWY OLKDY. * ol yap 


na / i € lal % a \ 
KAAS StaxovncavTes Baypov éavTots Kadov TreEpiToLODYTAL Kal 


TodAny Tappyolav évy TiaTe TH ev Xpiot@ ‘Incod. 


defends (a) on the ground that in one 
part of the deacon’s office (care of sick 
and destitute) their wives might be fit- 
tingly associated with them. This is 
plausible; when, however, we observe 
the difference of class to which dca’tws 
seems to point (ver. 8, ch. ii. 9, Tit. ii. 
3, 6),—the omission of avtwy, — the or- 
der and parallelism of qualifications in 
ver. 8and 11, coupled with the suitable 
change of S:Adyous to diaBdAous, and the 
substitution of moras év maow for the 
more specific aisxpox. (deaconesses were 
probably almoners, Coteler, Const. Apost. 
11. 15, but in a much less degree),— 
the absence of any notice of the wives of 
éxickomot, —and lastly the omission of 
any special notice of domestic duties, 
though it follows (ver. 12) in the case of 
the men, we can scarcely avoid deciding, 
with Chrys., most ancient and several 
modern expositors ( Wies., Alf., Wordsw., 
al.), that (b) ‘ diaconisse’ are here allud- 
ed to. On the duties of the office, see 
Bingham, Antig. 11. 22, 8 sq., Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 864, Herzog, 
Real-Encycl. s. v. Vol. 111. p. 368, and 
the special treatise of Ziegler, de Diacon. 
et Diaconiss. Witeb. 1678. 

S1aBdrovs| ‘slanderous,’ ‘traducers,’ 
kataAdaAous, Theophyl. ; only in the Pas- 
toral Epp.: twice in reference to women, 
here and in Tit. ii. 3; once in ref. to 
men, 2 Tim. iii. 83. See the good article 
on the word in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. 
p: 848 sq. ynpdartovs 
«.T-A.] ‘sober, faithful in all. things.’ 
The evident parallelism between the 
qualifications in ver. 8, and the present, 
seem to imply that ynpdatos has its literal 
meaning; see notes on ver.2. The last 
qualification, moras év magw, is stated 


very generally; it does not, of course, 
preclude a ref. to domestic calls and cares 
(see Huther), but it certainly seems far 
more applicable to ecclesiastical duties. 

12. Stdeovor x.7.A.| Exactly the 
same qualifications in respect of their 
domestic relations required in the 6.d- 
kovot as in the émioxomos: see notes on 
ver. 4. 

13..yap| The importance of the of- 
fice is a sufficient warrant for the reason- 
ableness of the preceding requisitions. 
Badpmody caddy] ‘ayood degree, Auth. 
Ver., Arm. Baduds an am. Acyou. in N. 
T. (not an Ionic form of Baouds, Mack, 
but the very reverse: comp. apiduds, apa- 
weds, and Donalds. Cratyl. § 253), has 
received three different explanations ; ei- 
ther (a) ‘an (ecclesiastical) step,’ in refer- 
ence to an advance to a higher spiritual 
office Aith., Jerome, and appy. Chrys., 
al.; (b) ‘a post,’ in reference to the hon- 
orable position a deacon occupied in the 
Church, Matth., Huther; (c) ‘a degree,’. 
in reference to the judgment of God, and 
to their reward éy tr wéAdovTi Biw, The- 
od., De Wette, al. Of these (a) appears, 
on exegetical grounds, clearly untenable 
(opp. to Wordsworth); for surely such 
a ground of encouragement as ecclesias- 
tical promotion (were this even histori- 
cally demonstrable, which appears not 
the case in the first two centuries) seems 
strangely out of place in St. Paul’s 
mouth, and preserves no harmony with 
the subsequent words. Against (b) the 
aor. daxov. is not fairly conclusive, as it 
may admit a reference not necessarily to 
a remote, but to an zmmediate past; the 
mepi@oino.s of a good position would nat- 
urally ensue after some discharge of the 
diaxovia. The associated clause, how- 


64. 


I write this. to guard thy 
conduct in the church of 


the living God ; verily great ge TAX OV" 
is the mystery of godliness. 


ever, and the use of the ferm zappycia, 
especially with its modal adjunct év zio- 
tex. T.A., both seem so little in harmony 
with this ecclesiastical reference, while 
on the other hand they point so very nat- 
urally to the position of the Christian 
with respect to God (see notes on Eph. 
iii. 12, and comp. Heb. iv. 16, 1 John ii. 
28, iii. 21), and derive so very plausible 
support from the appy. parallel pas- 
sage, ch. vi. 19, that we decide somewhat 
unhesitatingly in favor of (c), and refer 
BaSpbs to the’step or degree which a faith- 
ful discharge of the d:axovia would ac- 
quire in the eyes of God. 
mepiTotovvTat EauTois] ‘acquire, 
obtain for themselves, — only here and 
Acts xx. 28 (a speech of St. Paul’s) ; 
compare also 1 Thess. v. 9, mepimolnow 
owtnplas, which seems indirectly to yield 
considerable support to the foregoing in- 
terpretation of BaSudv. For examples 
of the reflexive pronoun with middle 
verbs, see Winer, Gr. § 38.6, p. 230. 
The insertion here perhaps makes the 
personal reference a little more certain 
and definite: the duties of the deacon 
had commonly reference to others. 
acappnatav] ‘boldness,’ ‘ fiduciam,’ 
Clarom., Vulg.; properly ‘openness ’ 
of (Mark viii. 32, al., and frequently in 
St. John) or ‘boldness of speech’ (Acts 
iv. 13), and thence derivatively that ‘ con- 
fidence and boldness of spirit’ (&e.a, 
Suidas), with which the believer is per- 
mitted and encouraged (Heb. iv. 16) to 
approach his heavenly Father; 1 John 
ii. 28, iii. 21, ete. The use of magp. in 
reference to the final reward, is clearly 
evinced in 1 John iv. 17. Huther urges 
that this derivative meaning always 
arises from, and is marked by, its con- 
comitants, mpos Tov Oedv, 1 John iii. 21, 
etc. Here éy micre: k.7.A. does seem 
such an adjunct; at any rate, 2 Cor. vii. 


i*fIiMoTHY 


Cuap. III. 14 


14 Tadra cor ypadw, édmifov €rSeiv mpos 
5 gay d€ Bpadiva, iva cidns Tas 


4 (adduced by Huther), where there is 
no similar addition, cannot plausibly be 
compared with the present case: see De 
Wette zn loc., whose note on this passage 
is full and explicit. 

év wiotet x.T.A.] ‘in faith which is 
in Christ J” By the insertion of the 
article (comp. ch. i. 14, 2 Tim. i. 13, iii. 
15, al.), two moments of thought are ex- 
pressed, the latter of which explains and 
enhances the former: ‘in fide (aiotis 
was the foundation, substratum, of the 
mapp.), eaque in Chr. Jes. collocata ;’ see 
Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p.195. The 
article is not uncommonly omitted (Gal. 
lii. 26, Eph. i. 15, Col. i. 4) on the prin- 
ciple explained in notes on Eph. i, 15. 
On the meaning of mor. év, comp. notes 
on ch. i. 16. 

14. ratdra] ‘ These things ;’ not ‘to- 
tam epistolam,’ Beng., but more proba- 
bly ‘these foregoing brief directions,’ 
Hamm. If St. Paul had here adopted 
the epistolary aorist (comp. notes on Gal. 
vi. 11), the latter reference would have 
been nearly certain. The use of the 
present leaves it more doubtful, and re- 
mands us to the context; this (compare 
yer. 15) certainly seems to limit tatra 
to ‘superiora illa de Episcoporum, Dia- 
conorumque officiis,’ Goth. ap. Pol. Syn. 
On the uses of yeddw and éypaya see 
Winer, Gir. § 40. 5, p. 249. 
éaAtiCwr] ‘ hoping,’ or, more definitely, 
‘though I hope,’ the part. having its con- 
cessive force; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. 
The actual reason of his writing is im- 
plied in the following verse, va eidjs 


7 


K.T. A. Ta xXLo0v] ‘more 
quickly ;? not, on the one hand, ‘compar. 
absoluti loco positum’ (Beza; taxi07Ta, 
Coray), nor, on the other, with marked 
compar. force, ‘sooner than thou wilt 
need these instructions’ (Winer, Gr. § 
35. 4, p. 217), but probably with a more 


2 


% 


Cuap. III. 15. 


1 TIMOTHY. 


65 


det év olk@ Ocod avactpéperSan, ijtis éotiv exxrAnola Ocod Cav- 
a NY IS / nN ic) / 
TOS, STUAOS Kal ESpaiwpa THs adynSelas. 


suppressed comp. reference, ‘sooner than 
these instructions presuppose,’ ‘ sooner 
than I anticipate.’ Such comparatives 
often refer to the suppressed feelings of the 
subject ; comp. Theano, ad Eubul. p. 86 
(ed. Gale), madiov, kv wh TaxLov payn, 
kAde. The reading év taxer(Lach., with 
ACD') seems only an explanatory gloss. 
15. Bpadvvea| ‘should tarry ;’ only 
here and 2 Pet. iii. 9. Wieseler (Chro- 
nol. p. 315) refers this to the possibility 
of the apostle’s journey, perhaps to Crete 
(p. 347), or to some place he had not 
included in his original plan. This rests 
on the supposition that the Epistle was 
written in the period included in the 
Acts,— which, however (see notes on 
ch. i. 3), does not seem probable. 
otkw cod] ‘the house of God;’ 
being anarthrous either owing to the 
prep. (Winer, Gr. § 19. 2) or the anar- 
throus gen. which follows ; comp. Mid- 
dleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3.6. This appel- 
lation, derived from the Old Test., where 
it denotes primarily the temple (2 Chron. 
v: 14, Ezra v. 16. al., comp. Matth. xxi. 
13) and secondarily the covenant-people 
(Numbers xii. 7, Hosea viii. 1), those 
among whom God specially dwelt, is 
suitably applied in the N. Test. to the 
Church,— either viewed as the spiritual 
building which rests on Christ as the 
corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20), or as the true 
temple in which Christ is the true High 
Priest (Heb. iii. 6, 1 Pet. iv. 17); see 
Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 468, Vol. 11. p. 
395. avartpéeperdsai| 
“walk, have (thy) conversation in.’ It is 
doubtful whether this verb is to be taken 
(a) absolutely, ‘ how men ought to walk,’ 
Peile, Huther, al. ; or (b) specially with 
reference to Timothy, ‘how thou ought- 
est to walk,’ Auth. Ver., De Wette, al. 
Huther urges against (b) that in what 
precedes Timothy has no active course 


otkw 


9 


assigned to him, but rather the supervis- 
ion of it in others ; as, however avac7péo. 
is a ‘vox media’ which does not mark 
mere activities, but rather conduct and 
deportment in its most inclusive refer- 
ence (comp. Eph. ii. 3, where it ‘closely 
follows the Hebraistic mepurateiy,)—as the 
explicative clause jtis éotly Kk. 7. A. seems 
intended to impress on ‘Timothy the 
greatness of his ofxevouia,— and as the 
expansion of ol. Ocod from the special 
church over which Timothy presided, to 
the general idea of the universal Church, 
involves no real difficulty (see De W.), 
it seems best to adopt (b) and limit 
avaorp. to Timothy: so rightly Clarom., 
Vulg. Ares] 
explanatory use of the indef. relative : 
compare notes on Eph. i. 23, and esp. 
Gal. iv. 24, where the uses of Saris are 
explained at length. éexKkaAnala 
Oceod CavTos| ‘ the Church of the living 
God ;’ fuller definition of the ofxos @cod, 
on the side of its internal and spiritual 
glory: it was no material fane (‘oppo- 
nitur fano Diane,’ Beng.) of false dead 
deities, but a living and spiritual com- 
munity, a life stream (see Olsh. on Matth. 
xvi. 18), of believers in an ever-living 


‘which indeed ;” 


God. 7?EkkAnola appears to have two 
meanings, according to the context and 


point of view in which it is regarded. 
On the one hand, in accordance with its 
simple etymological sense (Acts xix. 
39), it denotes a Christian congregation 
(Tév motey toy cbAdAoyov, Theodosius- 
Mops ), with a local reference of greater 
or less amplitude; see exx. in Pearson, 
Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 397 (ed. Bur- 
ton) : on the other, it involves the mean- 
ing and adaptations of + Srp in the O. T., 

and denotes the INseCovenniit paagie 
of God, with spiritual reference to their 
sacramental union in Christ and com- 
munion with one another; see esp. Bp. 


66 


relLMOT HY; 


Cuap. III. 16. 


A 4 , n 
16 Kat Omodoyoupévas méeya éotly TO THs evoeBelas pvaTpLov, Os 


16. ds] So Tisch., Lachm., Tregelles, Alf, Wordsw., and apparently the majority 


of modern critics. 


eds (Lec.) is adupted by Mill, Maith., Scholz, some commentt., 


Leo, Mack, Burton, Peile, al., and, it ought not to be suppressed, some of our best 


English divines, Bull, Waterland (Vol.11. p. 158). 


The state of evidence is briefly 


as follows. (1) “Os is read with A‘ |indisputubly: after minute personal inspec- 
tion ; see note, p. 103] C! [Tisch. Prol. Cod. Ephr. § 7, p. 39] FG and the newly- 
discovered & |'Tisch. Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20]; 17.78.81; Syr.-Phil., Copt., Sah., 


Goth. ; also (ds or 6) Syr. Ar. (Erp.), 4Zth., Arm. 


Gelas., Hieron. in Hsatam wii. 11. 
nearly all Latin Ff. 


; Cyr., Theod.-Mops, Epiph., 
(2) 8 with D'; Clarom., Vulg. ; 


(3) Seds, with D?KL; nearly all mss.; Arab. 


(Polygl.), Slav.; Did., Chrys. (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theod., Euthal., 


Taylor, Dissuasive, Part 11.1.1, Ebrard, 
Dogmatik, § 467, Vol. 11. p. 392, and the 
various usages cited by Suicer, Thesaur. 
8. v. Vol. 1, p. 1049. 

aotdAos cad €dp.| ‘pillar and basis of 
the truth:’ no ev 8a Svoi (= ‘ firmly- 
grounded,’ Beng., Peile), but a climactic 
apposition to éxxA. @cod (@vTos,— defin- 
ing, with indirect allusion to nascent and 
developing heresies (see chap. iv. 1 sq.), 
the true note, office, and vocation of the 
Church , otiaov abthy Kal édpaimya éxa- 
Accev, as by ev abTh Tis aAndelas Thy 
atotacw éxovons, Theodorus. Were 
there no Church, there would be no wit- 
ness, no guardian of archives, no basis, 
nothing whereon acknowledged truth 
could rest. Chrysostom adopts the right 
connection, but inverts the statement, 7 
yap GAs. éots Tis éxKA. Kal oTbAos Kab 
édp., missing appy. the obvious distinc- 
tion between truth in the abstract, and 
truth, the saving truth of the Gospel, as 
revealed to, and acknowledged by, men ; 
comp. Taylor. Disswasive, Part 1. 1. 1. 
3. Such appears the only natural con- 
struction of the clause. 
tion with what follows, as has been adyo- 
cated by Episcopius (Inst. Theol. rv. 1. 
8, Vol. 1. p. 241) and others (it is to be 
feared mainly from polemical reasons), 
is alike abrupt (there being no conncct- 
ing particles), illogical (a strong substan- 
tival, being united with a weak adjecti- 


A close connec- 


val predication), and hopelessly artifi- 
cial: see De Wette in loc. It may he 
added that oriaAos and édpalwua (amat 
Acydu.; comp. SeueAtos, 2 Tim. ii. 19) 
do not appy. involve any architectural 
allusion to heathen temples, etc. (Dey- 
ling, Obs. Art. 66, Vol. 1. p. 317), but 
are only simple metaphorical expressions 
of the stability and permanence of the sup- 
port: see the copious illustrations of this 
passage in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. pp. 
1042—1066. 

16. kal bwoAoyoupéevas k.T.A.] 
‘ And confessedly or indisputably great (7. e. 
deep, Ephesians y. 32) is the mystery, ete. 


2] Oo 
>) Lol #4 g& [vere magnum| Syr.. 


“nemo (scil. of those to whom this wuort. 
is revealed), cui mica sane mentis inest 
de e4 re potest controversiam movere,’ 
Altmann, Melet. 10, Vol. 11. p. 268. 
The xa is not simply copulative, but 
heightens the force of the predication, 
“yes, confessedly great,’ etc.; compare 
Hartung, Partik. nai, 5.4, Vol. 1. p. 145. 
Several examples of a similar use of 
moar. are cited by Wetstein and Raphel 
in loc. ; add Joseph. Ant. 1. 10. 2, jv 8& 
ToLovTos GuoAoy., 2b. It. 9. 6, dmodroy. 
‘EBpalwy &piotos; see also Suicer, The- 
saur. Vol. 11. p. 479, and Altmann, Joc. 
cit., where there is a discussion of some 
merit on the whole verse. 

evoeBelas wvaotnptor] ‘the mystery 


Cuar. IIL. 16. 1 TIMOTHY. 67 


épaveparn év capki, édixaw Sn ev mrevpati, &dSn ayyédous, 


Damasc., Theophyl., Gicum.,— Ignat. Eph. 19 (but very doubtful). On 
reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but all the 
Vv. older than the 7th century are distinctly in favor of a relative,—as 9 seems only 
a Latinizing variation of és,—and lastly, as os is the more difficult, though really 
the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, Schriftb, Vol. 1. p. 143), and on every 
reason more likely to have been changed into @eds (Macedonius is actually said to 
have been expelled for making the change, Liber Diac. Grev. cap. 19) than wice 


ver'sd, we unhesitatingly decide in favor of és. 


For further information on this sub- 


ject, see Griesbach, Symb. Crit. Vol. 1. pp. 8—54, Tregelles, Printed Text of N. T. 
p. 227, Davidson, Bibl. Criticism, ch. 66, p. 828. 


of yodliness ;? ‘ipsa doctrina ad quam 
omnis pietas sive religio Christiana refe- 
renda est,’ Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 147: 
see notes on ver. 9, where the gen. is in- 
vestigated. bs €havepadsyn 
x. 7. A.) ‘Who was manifested in the 
flesh. The construction cannot be either 
satisfactorily or grammatically explained 
unless we agree to abide by the plain 
and proper meaning of the relative. 
Thus, then, ds is not emphatic, ‘ He 
who’ (Tregelles, Pr. Text, p. 278), nor 
‘including in itself both the demonstra- 
tive and relative’ (Davidson, Bibl. Crit. 
p- 846,— a very doubtful assertion ; com- 
pare Day, on the Relative, § 1. p. 8; § 60, 
61. p. 98),—nor absolute, ‘ecce! est 
qui’ (Matthies: John i. 46, iii. 34, Rom. 
iil. 28; 1 Cor. vii. 37,1 John i..8, are ir- 
relevant, being only exx. of an ellipsis of 
the demonstr.),— nor, by a ‘ constructio 
ad sensum,’ the relative to puothpior, 
Olsh. (Col. i. 26, 27 is no parallel, being 
only a common case of attraction, Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150),— but is a rela- 
tive to an omitted though easily recog- 
nized antecedent, viz., Christ; so De 
Wette, and apparently Alf. (whose note, 
however, is not perfectly perspicuous). 
To refer it to the preceding @cod ( Words- 
worth) seems very forced, especially after 
the intervention of the emphatic words 
oTvAOS K.T A. It may be remarked 
that the rhythmical as well as antithetical 
character of the clauses (see the not im- 


probable arrangement in Mack, and 
comp. notes to Transl.) and the known 
existence of such compositions (Eph vy. 
19; compare Bull, Fid. Mie. 11. 3.1) 
render it not by any means improbable 
that the words are quoted from some 
well known hymn, or possibly from some 
familiar confession of faith; compare 
Winer, Gr. § 64. 3, p.519, and see Ram- 
bach, Antholoyie, Vol. 1. p. 33, where 
Eph. v. 14 is also ascribed to the same 
source ; so also Huth. and Wiesinger. 
epavepdadsn] ‘was manifested ;* comp. 
1 Jolin i. 2, 7 (ah épavepddn ; iii. 5, 
exeivos edavepoadn. In the word itself, 
as Huther well suggests, there is a pow- 
erful argument for the pre-existence of 
Christ. 

CStearddn ev rvevmatil ‘was jus- 
tified (was shown to be, evinced to be, 
just, Matth. xi. 19, Luke vii. 35) in spirit 
(in the higher sphere of His divine life).’ 
There is some little difficulty in these 
words, especially in mvetuart. The 
meaning however seems fixed by the 
antithesis capxi, especially when com- 
pared with other passages in which the 
higher and lower sides of that nature 
which our Lord was pleased to assume 
are similarly put in contrast. The mved- 
wa of Christ is not here the Holy Spirit 
(comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 163), 
nor 7 Sela dbvauis, Coray (comp. Chrys., 
and see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 777), 
but the higher principle of spiritual life 


68 
exnpvySn ev Edveow, émiaTevn 


(Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 48, Vol. 
11. p. 498) which was, not itself the Di- 
vinity, Wiesing. (this would be an Apol- 
linarian assertion), but especially and 
intimately wnited (not blended) and asso- 
ciated with it. In this higher spiritual 
nature, in all its manifestations, whether 
in His words and works, or in the events 
of His life, He was shown to be the All- 
holy, and the All-righteous, yea, ‘ mani- 
fested with power to be the Son of God,’ 
Rom. i. 4, John i. 14; compare 1 Pet. 
iii. 18 (Tisch., Lachm.), and Middleton, 
in loc. p. 430, but esp. the excellent note 
of Meyer on Rom. 1. c. The assertion of 
some commentators that the term odpé 
includes the body, soul, and sprit ’ of 
Christ is not reconcilable with the prin- 
ciples of biblical psychology ; the odpé 
may perhaps sometimes include the pux7, 
but never, in such passages of obvious 
antithesis, the mvedua as well; see Liicke, 
on John i. 14. The student of 
St. Paul’s Epp. cannot be too earnestly 
recommended to acquire some rudiments 
of a most important but very neglected 
subject — biblical Psychology. Much 
information of a general kind will be 
found in Schubert, Gesch. der Seele (ed. 
2), and of a more specific nature in Beck, 
Bibl. Seelenlehre (a small but excellent 
treatise), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., and 
Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. 6. 

SoS ayy €éAots] ‘was seen of angels,’ 
Auth. Ver., 7. e. ‘appeared unto, showed 
Himeelf unto, angels’. Both the use of 
opaiva (occurring more than twenty 
times in the N. T., and nearly always 
with reference to the self-exhibition of the 
subject), and the invariable meaning of 
&yyero in the N. T. (not ‘apostles,’ Leo, 
Peile, al., but ‘ angels’) preclude any 
other translation. The epoch, however, 
precisely referred to cannot be defined 
with certainty. The grouping of the 


1 ADO PY. 


Cuap. III. 16. 
ey Koop, avehnud sn év So&n. 


clauses (see notes to Jransl.), according 
to which the first two in each division 
appear to point to earthly relations, the 
third to heavenly, seem to render it very 
probable that the general manifestation 
of Christ to angels through His inearna- 
tion,— not, inversely, the specific ap- 
pearances of them during some scenes of 
His earthly life (Theophyl., comp. Alf.), 
nor any (assumed) specific manifestation 
in heaven (De W.),— is here alluded to : 
see esp. Chrysost., &p3n ayyéAas bore 
kal GyyeAor med Tudy eidoyv Toy viby Tod 
cov mpdtepoy ovx épavtes; so also The- 
odoret, thy yap adpatoy Hs SedTHTOs 
glow ovde excivor Edpwy, capkwsevra dé 
éXeaoavto. Hammond includes also evil 
angels; this is possible, but the antithe- 
sis of clauses seems opposed to it. 
émictevan| ‘was believed on;’ not 
‘fidem sibi fecit,’ Raphel, but ‘ fides illi 
habita est,’ Beza; compare 2 Thess. i. 
10, and see also Winer, Gram. § 39. 1, 
p. 2383. 

averdHupan ev S6En] ‘was received 
up in glory;’ ev here being used, not 
simply for ets (Rosenm.), nor with def 
as an equivalent of évddtws (comp. Ham- 
mond), but in a sort of ‘ pragnans sen- 
sus,’ Sc. eis 5dfav Kat early ev 56k (Wahl, 
Huther) ; see Winer, Gr. § 50. 4, p. 367 
sq., and comp. Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. 
Vol. 1. p. 598. The event here referred 
to is simply and plainly the historical 
ascent of Christ into heaven. No words 
can be more distinct ; compare aveAjud- 
Sy, Mark xvi. 19, Acts i. 2,11 (part.), 
22; and dvepépeto eis Toy ovpavdy, Luke 
xxiv. 51 (Lachm.) 

For a good sermon on the whole verse 
see Sanderson, Serm. 1x. (ad Aul.), p. 
479 sq. (Lond. 1689), and for devotional 
comments of the highest strain, Bp. Hall, 
Great Mystery of Godliness, Vol. V11I. p. 
330 (Oxford 1837). 


Crap. IV. 1, 2. 


In the latter times men 
shall fall away from the 
faith, and shall teach prin- 
eiples of abstinence which 
are not approved of God. 


Tee OUR OY. 


69 


_ 


\ \ ral A 
IV. To 6 [Ivedpa pntas Néyee Ore év borté- 
lal ’ na 
pos Kaipois aTooTicovtal Twes THs TioTEWS, 
ld 
TpooexYovTEs Tvevpwacw TrdVOS Kal SioacKa- 


s U 5 t z 
Alas Saoviov, 2% év UroKpice revdodGywrv, KEKavTNpLacLEveVv 


Car. IV. 1. 7d 5 Mvedpal ‘ But 
the (Holy) Spirit ;’ contrast to the fore- 
going in the present and in the future, — 
the particle 5¢ here indicating no transi- 
tion to a new subject (Auth., Conyb. ; 
comp. notes on Gal. iii 8), but retaining 
its usual antithetical force; ‘great in- 
deed as is the mystery of godliness, the 
Holy Spirit has stil/ declared that there 
shall be disbelief and apostasy ;” pi) dav- 
pdons, Chrys. pn7@s] ‘ distinct 
ly,’ ‘expressly’ (pavep@s, tapas, dmodo- 
younevws, ws uy audiBaddrcw, Chrysost. ; 
‘non obscure aut involute, ut fere loqui 
solent prophete,’ Justiniani), not only 
in the prophecies of our Lord, Matth. 
xxiv. 11, al., and the predictions, whether 
of the apostles (comp. 1 John ii. 18, 2 
Pet. iii. 3, Jude 18) orof the prophets in 
the various Christian churches (Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 340), but more par- 
ticularly in the special revelations which 
the Holy Spirit made to St. Paul him- 
self; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3 sq. 
katpots| ‘latter 
This expression, used only in this place, 
is not perfectly synonymous (Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 224) with éoxd- 
Tas nuepas, 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2 Pet. iii. 3 
(Lachm., Tisch.), James v. 3 (compare 
Koip@ eaxatw, 1 Pet. 1.5, €oxaTos xpdvos, 
Jude 18); the latter expression, as Hu- 
ther correctly observes, points more spe- 
cifically to the period immediately pre- 
ceding the completion of the kingdom of 
Christ; the former only to a period fu- 
ture to the speaker,— of &kcAovSo xpdvot, 
Coray ; see Pearson, Minor Works, Vol. 
11. p. 42. In the apostasy of the pres- 
ent, the inspired apostle sees the com- 
mencement of the fuller apostasy of the 
future. In this and a few other passages 


7 ¢ 


boreépots times.’ 


in the N. T., xapds appears nearly sy- 
nonymous with xpdvos; comp. Lobeck, 
Ajarz, p. 85. 

mpoaéxovtes| See notes on ch. i. 4. 
myvevu. wAdvots) ‘deceiving spirits ;’ 
certainly not merely the false teachers 
themselves (Mack, Coray, al.) ,— 
less violation of the primary meaning of 
mvetua,— but, as the antithesis 7d Tvetdua 
suggests, the deceiving powers and prin- 
ciples, the spiritual emissaries of satan, 
which work in their hearts ; comp. Eph. 
ii. 2, vi. 12 (see notes), 1 John iv. 1 sq. 
SidacK. 


a need- 


Satmoviwy| ‘doctrines of 
devils;’ not ‘doctrines about devils,’ 
Mede, al., ‘demonolatry,’ Peile (docu. 
being a gen. oljecti), but doctrines ema- 
nating from, taught by, devils’ (gen. 
subjecti) ; see Winer, Gir. § 30. 1. obs., 
p. 168, and comp. Thorndike, Cov. of 
Grace, 11.12, Vol. 111. p. 195 (A.-C.L.). 
The term dauodrov, it may be observed, 
is not here a‘vox media’ (comp. Ign. 
Smyrn. 3), but has its usual N. T. mean- 
ing ; see Pearson, Minor Works, Vol. 11. 
p. 46. Olshausen significantly remarks 
on this passage, that man never stands 
isolated ; if he is not influenced by 7d 
Tv. rd ayiov, he at once falls under the 
powers of 7d mvedua Tijs mAdyys (1 John 
iv. 6). 

2.év troxpice: pevdorAdywr| 
‘in (through) the hypocrisy of the speakers 
of lies,” Hammond ; prepositional clause 
appended to mpooéxovtes, defining the 
manner (pretended sanctity and ortho- 
doxy) in which 76 mpocéxew x. T. A. Was 
brought about and furthered; év being 
instrumental. Leo and Matth explain 
the clause as a second modal definition 
of the fallers away, parallel to rpooéxov- 
Tes k.7T.A, and more immediately de- 


70 


Do Ah Dh go gk 


Guar. 1a 


4 5 Noe 5 3 ' 3 AL DpRTE y , : 
THV LOLAV’ OVVELONOLY, K@AVOVTOV YAMELW, ATTEVEO NAL Bpwpatov, 


Ue % ” ? / \ 3. f a a 
aw 0 Meos ExTicev Els pEeTAaANMAYW META EVXApPLOTLAS TOlS TLOTOIS 


pendent on amoothoovta ; ‘habent in se 
eam brdxp. qualis est dmoxp. wevdor.,’ 
Heinr., and so appy. Auth. Ver. This 
isdoubtful ; the third clause kwA. yawetv 
seems far too direct an act of the false 
teachers suitably to find a place in such 
an indirect definition of the falsely taught. 
Matth. urges the absence of the article 
before droxpioe, but this after the prep. 
(Huther needlessly pleads N. T. laxity) 
is perfectly intelligible (Winer, Gr. § 19. 
2, p. 114), even if it be not referable to 
the principle of correlation; comp. Mid- 
dleton, Art 117. 3.6. Thus, then, lying 
teachers will be the mediate, evil spirits 
the immediate, causes of the apostasy. 
KekauT. Thy idtiav cuvelts.| ‘beng 
branded on their own conscience :’ the ac- 
cusative with the passive verb (compare 
ch. vi. 5, SuePapuevor Toy vovr, etc.) cor- 
rectly specifies the place in which the ac- 
tion of the verb is principally manifested. 
The exact application of the metaphor is 
doubtful ; it may ‘be referred to the éo- 
xatTn avarynota after cautery (Theodo- 
ret), or more probably to the penal brand 
which their depraved conscience bore, 
as it were, on its brow (Theophyl.) ; 
‘insignite nequitiz viros et quasi scele- 
rum mancipia,’ Justiniani. See the nu- 
merous and fairly pertinent examples 
cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298, 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 357. *I8lay is 
not without emphasis; they knew the 
brand they bore, and yet with a show of 
outward sanctity (comp. broxploe) they 
strove to beguile and to seduce others, 
and make them as bad as themselves. 
8. Kkwrdvdytwy yapmety] ‘ forbid- 
ding tomarry.’ This characteristic, which 
came afterwards into such special prom- 
inence in the more developed Gnosticism 
(see Clem. Alex. Strom. 111. 6, Irenxus, 
Her. 1. 22, al.), first showed itself in the 
false asceticism of the Essenes (see esp. 


Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 2, yduwou pev 
tmepola map avtots, Antig. XVIII. 1. 5. 
ovTE yameTas eiodyovta Pliny, N. H. v. 
17) and Therapeutz, and was one of 
those nascent errors which the inspired 
apostle foresaw would grow into the im- 
pious dogma of later times, ‘ nubere et 
generare a Satana dicunt esse,’ Irenzeus, 
l.c.: see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 735. 
améxetdat Bpwuatwy| ‘ (bidding) 
to abstain from meats ;’ kwAvoytTwy must 
be resolved into mapayyeAAdvtwy uh (see 
ch. ii. 12), from which wapayy. must be 
carried on to the second clause ; see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 66. 2, p. 548. Distinct no- 
tices of this abstinence and severity in 
respect of food are to be found in the ac- 
count of the Therapeute in Philo, Vit. 
Contempl. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 477 (ed. Mang.). 
When there are thus such clear traces of 
a morbid and perverted asceticism in the 
apostle’s own day, it is idle in Baur to 
urge these notices as evidences against 
the authenticity of the Epistle. It may 
be remarked that the view taken of the 
errors combated in this and the other 
Pastoral Epp. (see notes on ch. i. 3) ap- 
pears to be confirmed by the present pas- 
sage. St. Paul is alluding throughout, 
not to Judaism proper, but to that false 
spiritualism and those perverted ascetical 
tendencies, which emanating from Juda- 
ism, and gradually mingling with simi- 
lar principles derived from other systems 
(compare Col. ii. 8 sq., and see Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 645, 646), at 
last, after the apostolic age, became 
merged in a fuller and wider Gnosticism ; 
see also Wiesinger in /oc., whose indirect 
confutation of Baur is satisfactory and 
convincing. On asceticism generally, 
and the view taken of it in the N. T., 
comp. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 878 sq., 
Vol. 111. p. 120 sq. 

& 6 @ebs K-7.A.] ‘which God created 


Cuap. LV. 4. 


‘ ’ / \ ’ / 
Kal eTeyvwkool THY adn eav. 


to be partaken of,’ etc.: confutation of the 
second error. The reason why the for- 
mer error is left unnoticed has been dif- 
ferently explained. The most probable 
solution is that the prohibition of mar- 
riage had not as yet assumed so definite 
a form as the interdiction of certain kinds 
of food. ‘The Essenes themselves were 
divided on this very point; see Joseph. 
Bell. Jud. 11.8. 13, and comp. 7b. 11. 8. 
2. This perhaps led to the choice of the 
modified term cwAvdytav. 

Tots mtaTots| ‘for the fuitiful,’ Wam- 
mond, Est. The dat. is not the dat. of 
reference to, Bengel (compare notes on 
Gal. i. 22), still less for 67d trav moray 
(Bloomf.), but marks the objects for whom 
the food was created. Bpduara were, 
indeed, created for all, but it was only 
in the case of the moot, after a receiving 
meTa evap. (condition attached), that 
the true end of creation was fully satis- 
fied. kal émeyvwrdoiv 
k. T.A.] ‘and who have full knowledge of,’ 
etc.: the omission of the article { Winer, 
Gr. § 19. 4, p. 116) shows that the moro? 
and émeyy. k.7T.A. constitute a single 
class, the latter term being little more 
than explanatory of the former (Estius). 
On éreyvwndtes eriyywors=adloraxtos 
ywaeois, Coray), see notes on Eph. i. 17, 
and Valck. on Luke, p. 14 sq. 

4. O71 wav K.7-A.] ‘because every crea- 
ture of God is good :’ not explanatory of 
(Theoph., Beng.), but giving the reason 
for the foregoing words ; 2. e. not what is 
ealled an objective (Donalds. Gr. § 584), 
but a causal sentence. The apostle has 
to substantiate his former declaration 
that meats are intended to be enjoyed 
with thanksgiving: this he does by the 
positive declaration (comp. Gen. i. 31) 
mav xticua @cod caddy (corresponding to 
& 6 @cds Exrivev), supported and enhanc- 
ed by the negative sentence, kal ovdéy 


«. TA, (parallel to eis meTaA. meTa edx.),- 


ie aT MOU HY: 


71 


v lal an ’ 
4 OTe wav KTicopa Ocod Karov, 


which again is finally confirmed by the 
declaration in y. 5. Krioua is ouly here 
used by St. Paul, his usual expression be- 
ing ktiows. The argument, however, of 
Schleierm. based: upon it is sufficiently 
answered by Planck, who cites several 
instances, €.g. mpookon) 2 Cor. vi. 3, 
opeiAnua Rom. iv. 4, etc., of words thus 
only once used when another and more 
usual synonym might have beenexpected. 
ktloua Ocod| ‘creature of God,’ ‘every 
creation of his hand designed for food : ’ 
T@ ciety, KTigpa, Tep) TAY Cdwiuwy amay- 
twy yvitato, Chrys. The fact of its be- 
ing His creation is enough; ef xtioua 
@eod, kadov, ib.; comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 
33, 34. amdBAnTor| ‘to 
be refused:’ expansion of the former 
statement; not only was everything 
kaAév, whether in its primary (‘ eutward- 
ly pleasing,’ xad-Ads, Donalds. Cratyl. § 
324), or secondary and usual accepta- 
tion, but further, ‘nothing was to be re- 
jected.” It was a maxim even of the 
heathens that the good gifts of the gods 
were not to be rejected ; so Hom. J/. 111. 
65, compare Lucian, Timon, § 37, otro 
andBAnta ciot Ta Sapa Ta Tapa Tov Ards 
(cited by Kypke). The whole of this 
verse 1s well discussed by Bp. Sanderson, 
Serm. v. (ad Populum), p. 233 sq. (Lon- 
don 1689), 
AapmB.| ‘ifit bereceived, etc.; condi- 
tional use of the participle ; see Donalds. 
Gr. § 505, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 11, and 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 45.2. This clause 
specially limits the assertion od5ev aréBa., 
and while it shows how the assertion is 
to be accepted serves also to echo and 
elucidate the previous limitation, peT& 
evx- in verse 3. Wiesinger considers 
kaAdy as also dependant on pera edx. 
AauB., and not a positive and independ- 
ent assertion. This, however, does not 
seem satisfactory; for as the previous 
verse virtually contains two assertions,’ 


METH EVX, 


72 


PTEM O THY . 


Cuap. IV. 5,6. 


‘ , 
Kal ovdev aTroBANTOv peTa evyapltaTias NapBavopevov' 5 daryiake- 
Tat yap Oia Noyou Oceod Kat évtevsews. 


Reject all idle teachings 
and discussion, and practi- 
eally exercise thyself in 
godliness, which is lasting- 
ly profitable. 


viz., that @eds &xrirev eis peTda., and 
that the werdAnuis was to be weTa evxap., 
so the present verse contains two confirm- 
atory clauses, viz., that the food being 
God’s creation, is absolutely good (see 
Sanderson, Serm. v. § 4), and also that 
if so, weTa Edy. AapwBavdu. it is odK amd- 
Banrov, or relatively good as well. It is 
best then to retain the punctuation of 
Lachm. and Tisch. 

5. ayeaCetras yap] ‘for it is sancti- 
fied,’i. e. each time the food is partaken 
of; present tense corresponding to Aau- 
Bavéuevov. This verse is confirmatory 
of ver. 4, especially of the latter clause ; 
the general and comprehensive assertion, 
that nothing is to be rejected or consid- 
ered relatively unclean if partaken of 
with thanksgiving is substantiated by more 
nearly defining edxapitia and more 
clearly showing its sanctifying effect. 
‘Ayid¢ew is thus not merely declarative, 
‘to account as holy,’ but effective, ‘to 
make holy,’ ‘to sanctify.’ In some few 
things (e. g. eidwAdduta, Chrys.) the ayt- 
agpos might actually be absolute in its 
character ; in others, whether pronounced 
legally axdSapra, or accounted so by a 
false asceticism (e.g. the Essenes avoided 
wine and flesh on their weekly festival, 
Philo, Vit. Contempl. 4 9, Vol. 11. p. 483), 
the ayaopuds would naturally be relutive. 
Estius and Wiesinger seem to take ay- 
a¢erat as comprehensively absolute, and 
to refer the impurity of the crfoua to the 
primal curse; but is this consistent with 
Matth. xv. 11, Rom. xiv. 14, 1 Cor. x. 


25, 26, and can it be proved that the 


curse on the earth (Gen. iii. 17, observe 
especially the reading of the LXX, ém- 
KaTdparos ) yi év Tots pyots cov, 


6 Tatra imotiSéuevos Tots adedpois Kados 
éon OvaKovos Xpictov Incod, évtpepopevos Tois 
/ n / \ na an f e 
Adyos THs TlaTEws Kal THS KAAS OvwacKanias 7 


and see also Joseph. Ant. 1. 1. 4) took 
the special effect of unhallowing the ani- 
mal or vegetable creation? If so, would 
not a law such as that in Lev. xix. 23, 
24, which applied to the polluted land of 
Canaan, have been of universal applica- 
tion? The effect of the primal curse is 
indeed most plain and palpable, (see 
Destiny of Creature, p. 12 sq.), but it 
seems doubtful whether it is to be recog- 
nized in the special form here alluded to. 
Adyou k.7.A.] ‘the word of God and 
supplication.’ ‘The regular and unvary- 
ing use of Adyos cod in the N. T. wholly 
precludes the gen. being taken as ohjectt, 
—‘oratio ad Deum facta,’ Wahl. The 
Adyos Oeod is the word of God as uttered 
and revealed by Him in the Scriptures, 
and here, as the close union with évrevéis 
clearly suggests, must be referred not to 
any decree of God (Sanders. Serm. v. § 
39), but to the contents of the prayer ; 
the word of God as involved and em- 
bodied in the terms of the prayer. Thus, 
as Wiesinger suggests, the idea of edxa- 
ptotia is expressed in the fullest manner ; 
on its objective side as to the contents of 
prayer, and on its subjective side (évrvy- 
xavew) as to the mode in which it is 
made. On érevéis, see notes ch. ii. 1, 
and for an ancient form of grace before 
meat, see Alf. in loc. 

6. tatta bmor:d.| ‘ By setting 
forth,’ scil. ‘if thou settest forth, teachest 
(Syr.), these things: ’ 
TWY, OUK Eire TapayyeAAwY, GAAG SToTia., 


oun elmey émitdr- 


TouTéoTW, ws TuuBovAciwy TadTa roT{- 
Seco, Chrysostom. On the construction 
and more exact translation of the parti- 
ciple, see notes on ver. 16. 


The reference of tadra is somewhat 


Cuap.IV.6, 7. 


1 TIMOTHY. 73° 


mapnxorovsnxas. 7% Tods dé BeBnrovs Kal ypawders pUSous 


doubtful. As iroriderdan (dynamic mid- 
dle,—. e. application of the simple mean- 
ing of the active to mental and moral 
forces; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 4, 
and compare notes on ch. i. 16) seems 
clearly to imply not merely ‘in memo- 
riam revocare,’ Auth. Ver., but ‘ docere,’ 
‘instituere,’ whether ‘amice et leniter’ 
(Loesn.; compare Philo, Vit. Mos. 11. § 
9, Vol. 11. p. 142, ed. Mang.,. droriserat 
kal Tapynyoper TO wA€oy 7) KeAever; Hesy- 
chius, droSéoSat: cupBovacdoa), or, as 
in the present case, somewhat more pos- 
itively and precisely, 7b mapaweiy Kal 
BovAcverSa, Budzus (comp. Josephus 
Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 7, thy abtrhy broriservra 
diartay, see examples in Krebs, Obs. p. 
355 sq.), Tad7a will most naturally refer 
to ver. 4, 5, and to the principles and 
dissuasive arguments which it involves. 
See especially Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 
582, who well supports the latter mean- 
ing of brotisecdat. 

diakovos] ‘minister:’ ‘thou wilt fitly 
and properly discharge thy Siaxoviay, 2 
Tim. iv. 5; ‘tuo muneri cumulatissime 
satisfacies,’ Just. evTtTpeddpe- 
vos| ‘being nourished up.’ The pres- 
ent properly and specially marks a con- 
tinuous and permanent nutrition in ‘ the 
words of faith ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, 
p- 811. So, with his usual acuteness, 
Chrysost., 7d 5invexés rijs eis Ta To1wdTa 
mpocoxijs SnAGv. Loesner aptly com- 
pares, among other exx. (p. 399, 400), 
Philo, Leg. ad Cai. §-29, Vol. 11. 574 
(ed. Mang.), od« evetpapns ovde evnoK- 
Sns Tois iepots ypdupacw ; compare also 
§ 26, Vol. 11. p. 571, and see D’Orville, 
Chariton, p. 37: similar exx. of ‘innu- 
triri’ are cited in Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 
WOlnte p.-Ul'2 7. Tots 
Adyots THS TiaTews] ‘the words of 
faith, gen. subjecti; ‘ words, terms, in 
which, as it were, faith expresses itself,’ 
Huther. MWicvis, as Beng. suggests, in- 


volves areference to Tim., % Kady b:- 
dack. a reference to others. On the 
meaning of miotis, see notes on Gal. i. 
23, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 
127, who, however, too much gives up 
the subjective reference which the word 
always seems to involve. In the follow- 
ing relative clause, if js the reading of 
Lachm. [only with A, 80] be adopted, it 
must be regarded as an instance of un- 
usual, though defensible attraction ; see 
Winer, Gr. § 24. 1, p. 147. 

mapnkorovankas| ‘hast closely fol- 
lowed (as a disciple), hast been a follower 
of ;’ 2 Tim. iii. 10; perf. in appropriate 
connection with the pres., éevtpeddu. 
TlapakoAovsety (‘ subsequi ut assequaris,’ 
Valck. on Luke i. 3) is frequently used 
with ethical reference (e. g. mapaxod. Tots 
apayuacw, Luke /.c., Demosth. de Coron. 
p- 285; mapa. tots xpévos, Nicom. ap. 
Athen, 291) to denote ‘ tracing diligently 
out,’ ‘attending to the course of,’ and 
thence, by an intelligible gradation, ‘ un- 
derstanding the drift and meaning’ of 
any facts or subjects presented for con- 
sideration; see exx. of this latter mean- 
ing in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 207, and 
comp. Dissen, on Demosth. /. c. Both 
here, however, and 2 Tim. iii. 10, the 
meaning appears to be simply, ‘ followed 
after,’ not merely in the sense of imitat- 
ing a pattern (De W. on 2 Tim. /. c.), but 
of attending to a course of instruction, 
&s wadnths diddcKnadov, Coray ; the cad 
di8ackadta was, as it were, a school of 
which Tim. ‘was a disciple ;’ see Peile in 


Vv 
loc. The Syr. Aaj, See? quam 


didicisti| and the Vulg. ‘quam assecu- 
tus es’ (compare Auth. Ver.) express 
rather too strongly the simple result, and 
too insufficiently the process by which it 
was attained. 

7. rovs 5& BeBha. x. 7.A.] ‘ But 
with the (current) profane and old-wives’ 


10 


74 1 TIMOTHY. 


a. , be \ \ > My g e X é, \ 
mapaitov' yupuvate dé ceavTov Tpos evoéBevav. 1 Yap TMpaTLKy 


fables have nothing to do” The article 
(not noticed by the majorityof ex positors) 
appears to allude to the well-known 
character and the general circulation 
which the pio had obtained. These 
Jewish fables (Chrys., see notes on ch. i. 
4) are designated BéBnAua, ‘ profane’ (ch. 
1,9, vi. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 16, Heb. xii. 16), 
in tacit antithesis to edoéB., as bearing 
no moral fruit, as lying out of the holy 
compass, and, as it were, on the wrong 
side of the ByAbds of divine truths (comp. 
Schoettg. in loc.),— and ypaddes (az. 
Acydu.) as involving foolish and absurd 
statements. Wetstein aptly compares 
Strabo, 1. p. 32 a, thy rointixhy ypaddy 
pusoroylay amopaiver. The assertion of 
Baur that ypaédns points to a ypata, the 
Sophia-Achamoth (comp. Gieseler, Kir- 
chengesch. § 45), is untenable ; independ- 
ently of other considerations, it may be 
remarked that ypaixds (Clemens Alex. 
Peed. 111. 4, p. 270, Pott) would have 
been thus more grammatically exact than 
the present ypawdns (ypaweldns). 


mapattov| ‘decline, have nothing to do’ 


with,’ amdpevye, Coray ; always similarly 
used in the second person in the Pastoral 
Epp., e.g. ch. v. 11, and Titus iii. 10 
(persons), 2 Tim. ii. 23 (things). Mapar. 
does not occur again in St. Paul’s Epp. ; 
it is, however, used three times in Heb. 
(xii. 19, 25, bis) and four times by St. 
Luke : compare Joseph. Antiq. 111. 8. 8, 
Tapaitnoduevos Tacay tiunv.  Loesner, 
Obs. p. 404, gives a copious list of exx. 
from Philo, the most pertinent of which 
is Alleg. 111, § 48, Vol. 1. p. 115 (ed. 
Mang.), where mpooteuevos and mapaitov- 
evos are put in opposition : see also notes 
on ch. y. 11. yumvace 8] ‘and 
rather exercise ;’ so Auth. Ver., correctly 
marking the 6€, which serves to present 
antithetically the positive side of the con- 
duct Tim. is urged toassume. He is first 
negatively rapateiodat w0Sous, then posi- 


’ 


tively yuuva ew x.7.A. The special term, 
youvacew (Heb. v. 14, xii. 11, 2 Pet. ii. 
14) appropriately marks the strenuous ef- 
Jort which Timothy was to make, in con- 
trast with the studied &ornots of the false 
teachers. Tpods evoéB.] 
‘ for piety ;’ evoéBewa, ‘ practical, cultive, 
piety’ (see notes on ch. ii. 2), was the 
end toward which Timothy was to direct 
his endeavors. 

8. yap confirms the preceding clause 
by putting yuuvacia cwuatixh, the out- 
ward and the visible, in contrast with 
yuuvacla mpos <ioéB., the internal and 
the unseen. 
yupy.| ‘the exercise, or training, of the 


(2) Vv Ba > . : 
body,’ Syr. line? Lesos [exercitatio 
corporis]. The exact meaning of these 
words is somewhat doubtful. Tuuvacia 
may be referred, either (a) to the mere 
physical training of the body, gymnastic 
exercises proper, De W., Huther, and, 
as might be expected, Justin, Est., Mack, 
al.; or (b) to the ascetic training of the 
body (1 Cor. ix. 27) in its most general 
aspect (7 apa ocKAnpaywyla Tod odu., 
Coray), with reference to the theosophis- 
tic discipline of the false teachers, Tho- 
mas Aq., Matth. Wiesing., al. Of these, 
(a) is not to be summarily rejected, as it 
was maintained by Chrys., Theophyl. 
(though on mistaken grounds), Theod., 
Cicum., and has been defended with 
some ingenuity by De Wette: see Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 804. As, 
however, yuuvacia is not uncommonly 
used in less special references (e. g. Aris- 
tot. Zop. v111. 5, Polyb. Hist. 1. 1. 2),— 
as yuuva¢e (ver. 7) prepares us for this 
modification,— as the context seems to 
require a contrast between external ob- 
servances and inward holiness,—and, 
lastly, as ascetic practices formed so very 
distinctive a feature of that current Jew- 
ish Theosophy (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 


N TWMATLKN 


Cnar. 1V.8. 


Cuar. IV. 9, 10. 


1 TIMOTHY. 45 


, , 
yupvacia mpos ortLyov éativ @pédipos 7 Sé evceBEra Tpos TavTa 


apéeruos eat, eTrayyeriav Eyovoa Cwis ths viv Kal Tis werdov- 


ons. 


2 sq., Philo, Vit. Contempl. § 4 sq.) which 
in this chapter appears so distinctly al- 
luded to, it seems impossible to avoid 
deciding in favor of the latter interpreta- 
tion ; so Beveridge, Serm. ci. Vol. Iv. p. 
408 (A.-C. L.) Neander, Planting, Vol. 
1. p. 340 (Bohn), and apparently the 
majority of modern expositors. 

If it be urged that » cwpatich your. (in 
this sense) was unrestrictedly condemned 
in ver 2, 3, and could never be styled 
even mpds dAtyov awpéAmos, it seems 
enough to say that there the apostle is 
speaking of its morbid developments in 
the toerepor capo, here of the more inno- 
cent though comparatively profitless as- 
ceticism of the present. 

mpos dAiyoyr taken per se may either 


’ refer to the duration (Syr., Theod. ; com- 


pare James iy. 14) of the @péAea, or the 
extent to which it may be applied (Hu- 
ther, De Wette). The context, how- 
ever, and the antithesis mpds mdvra seem 
decidedly in favor of the latter, and to 
limit the meaning to ‘a little’ (ad modi- 
cum,’ Vulg.) — ‘the few objects, ends, 
or circumstances in life,’ toward which 
(mpbs dAlyov, not dAlyw or év dAtyw) bod- 
ily training and asceticism can be profit- 
ably directed. éxovca| 
“as it has, ‘since it has;’ causal use of 
the participle (comp. Donalds. Gr. § 615 
sq.) in confirmation of the preceding as- 
sertion. On the practical application of 
this clause see Barrow, Serm. 11. 111. 
Vol. 1. p. 23 sq. (Oxf. 1830). 

éemayyeAlav Cwis| ‘promise of life.’ 
The geuitival relation is not perfectly 
clear. If it be the gen. of zdentity or ap- 
position (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, 
p. 82), (wh, the import or rather object of 
the promise, would seem at first sight to 
involve two applications, quantitative 


? 


(‘long life,’ Eph. vi. 3, De W.) when’ 


N id / \ / > n yy 
9 qioTOS O AOYOS Kal TdoNs aTrodoyAs afLos. 


10 es TovTO 


in connection with rijs viv, qualitative 
(‘ holy, blessed life,’) when in connection 
with 7Hs meAAovons. If again it be the 
gen. of reference to (Huth., comp. Alf.), 
or if the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 
18. 1, p. 129 sq.), (wy retains its general 
meaning (‘vital existence,’ etc.), but 
émayyeAta becomes indefinite, and more- 
over is in a connection with its depend- 
ant genitive not supported by any other 
passage inthe N. T. This last objection 
is so grave that it seems preferable to 
adopt the first form of genitive, but in 
both members to give (w7 its higher and 
more definitely scriptural sense, and to 
regard it as involving the idea, not of 
mere length, or of mere material bless- 
ings (‘bona et commoda hujus vite,’ 
Caly., contrast Mark x. 30, neta diwy- 
pay), but of spzritual happiness (evda:no- 
via, Coray) and holiness; in a word, as 
expressing ‘the highest blessedness of 
the creature:’ see Trench, Synon. § 27, 
whose philology, however, in connecting 
wy} with &w is here doubtful; it is rather 
connected with Lat. ‘ vivere’ (Sanscrit 
jiv); see especially Pott, Etym. Forsch. 
Vol. 1. p. 265, Donalds. Cratyl. § 112, 
Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p.684. There 
is a good treatise on (wy in Olsh. Opuse. 
p- 187 sq. TRS viv K.T.A.| 
The two independent parts into which 
the life promised to edoeBera is divided, 
life in this world and that which is to 
come: the promises of the old covenant 
are involved and incorporated in the New 
(Taylor, Life of Christ, 111. 13, Dise. 15. 
15), and enhanced. On the use of the 
art., which thus serves to mark each part 
as separate, comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, 
p. 1i7. 

9. miotds 6 Adyos k.T.A.] See 
notes on ch. i. 15; here the formula is 
confirmatory of what immediately pre- 


76 


7 EE OP EY. 


Cuap. IV. 10. 


~\ \ Lal xX. 3 , A 2 iA - \ A lal 
Yap Kal KoTriapev Kat overdiloueSa, Stu Amixapev ert Oco Cave, 
t \ , ~ 
05 €oTW CwTIP TaYTWY aVSpwTOV, WadLCTA TLOTOD. 


cedes, 7d, O71 H evoEB. WPEAE Kal Els THY 
Tapovoav, kat eis Thy MEAA. Cwhv, eivat 
Adyos Gkios va morevera. Coray [mod- 
ern Greek]. The particle yép, ver. 10, 
obviously precludes any reference to what 
follows (Conyb.) ; compare notes on ch. 
iii. 1. 

10. eis Todt yap] ‘ For looking to 
this,’ (Col. i. 29, comp. Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 170), ‘in reference to this,’ viz. the real- 
ization of the promise in our own cases: 
Tl Onmote yap Toy ToAvy TovTOY avedek- 
dmeda Tovoy.... .€i ph Tis €oTt TOV ToveY 
aytidoois, Theod. The reference of eis 
tovTo (by no means synonymous with 
516. rodT0, Grot.) to the following é71,— 
‘therefore we both labor etc., because,’ 
Auth. Ver. (comp. Theophyl., Beza, al.), 
has been recently defended by Wiesinger; 
but surely this interrupts the causal con- 
nection (yap) with ver. 8, and its con- 
firmatory sequel ver. 9. It is not neces- 
sary to restrict todro to émuyyed. (wis 
Tis weAAovons (Weising.), for although 
this would naturally form the chief end 
of the coméay and dvedicerSat, still wh 
{in its extended sense) 7 viv might also 
suitably form its object, as being a kind 
of pledge and appaBav of (wh 7 mér- 
Aovoa. kal KOTL@Mev 
k T.A.] ‘we both labor and are the objects 
of reproach ;’ not merely St. Paul alone 
(Col. i. 29), or St. Paul and Timothy, 
but the apostles in general (1 Cor. iv. 
12), and all Christian missionaries and 
teachers. Komidw is frequently used in 
reference to both apostolic and ministe- 
rial labors (Rom. xvi. 12, 1 Cor. xy. 10, 
Gal. iv. 11, al.), with allusion, as the 
derivation (ko7-, kémTw,—not Sanscr. 
kap, Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p. 268] 
suggests, to the toil and suffering which 
accompanied them. The reading is not 
perfectly certain; the first cal is omitted 
in the important mss,, ACD ; majority 


of Vv.; Chrys., Dam., and Latin Ff. ; 
and ove. is replaced by ayort(dueda 
(Lachm.) in ACFGK, but apparently 
with only one version, Syr. (Philox.), 
and with only seven mss. The latter 
reading is suspicious as being easier, and 
as having possibly originated from Col. 
i. 29. The former (the omission of kat) 
is more specious ; the insertion, however, 
which is well supported (FGKL, and 
nearly all mss.; see 7isch.), gives a force 
and emphasis which seems peculiarly 
appropriate, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 11: not 
only, ‘ toil and shame’ (Kai), nor ‘ where 
toil, there shame’ (7e—xal), but ‘as well 
the one as the other’ (xal—xat), both 
parts being simultaneously presented in 
one predication; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4,. 
p- 889, and compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 
189, 195, pp. 322, 338. 

hAwinapev| ‘have set our hope on,’ 
‘have set and do set hope on,’—the 
perfect expressing the continuance and 
permanence of the éAmis; see Bernhardy, 
Synt. x. 6, p. 378, and compare ch. v. 5, 
vi. 17, John vy. 45, 2 Cor. i. 10. Peile 
and Wiesinger compare 1 Cor. xv. 19, 
haAmudtes éouev, but it should not be for- 
gotten that there 7A7. écuéy is not merely 
=Atixapev ; see Meyer in loc. "EAmi€w, 
like morevw (comp. notes on ch. i. 16), 
is found in the N. T. in connection with 
different prepositions ; (a) with év, 1 Cor. 
xv. 19, ‘spes in Christo reposita;’ (b) 
with eis, John v. 45, 2 Cor. i. 10, 1 Pet. 
iii. 5 (Lachm., Tisch.), marking the di- 
rection of the hope with perhaps also 
some faint (locative) notion of union or 
communion with the object of it; comp. 
notes on ch. i. 16, and on Gal. iii. 27: ' 
(c) with ém and dat., ch. vi. 17, Rom. 
xv. 12 (LXX), marking the basis or 
foundation on which the hope rests; () 
with ém and ace. (ch. v. 5), marking the 
mental direction with a view to that reli- 


-Cuap. IV, 11, 12. 


Let not thy youth induce 
contempt ; be rather a mod- 
el. Neglect not thy spirit- 
ual gifts, but persevere in 
all thy duties. 


ance; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 483. The 
simple dative is found (Lachm., Tisch.) 
in Matth. xii. 21 (LXX). 
Bs éoriy x.7.A.] ‘who is the Saviour 
of all men;’ relative clause, not, how- 
eyer, with any causal or explanatory 
force (this would more naturally be 
éo7is), but simply declaratory and defin- 
itive. The declaration is made to arouse 
the feeling that the same God who is a 
living, is a loving God, one in whom their 
trust is not placed in vain; the Saviour 
here and hereafter (Chrys., Theoph.) of 
all men, chiefly, especially, of them that 
believe. De Wette objects to the use of 
udAdwora; surely the primary notion of 
udada, ‘in a great degree’ [closely con- 
nected with peydAa, compare ‘moles ;’ 
Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 283], is 
here perfectly suitable and proper; God 
is the owrnp of all men, in the greatest 
degree of the motoi; 7. e. the greatest 
and fullest exhibition of His cwrnpia, its 
complete realization, is seen in the case 
of the morot ; comp. Gal. yi. 10, There 
is involved in it, as Bengel observes, 
anargumentum @ minorz ; ‘quanto magis 
eam (Dei beneficentiam) experienter pii 
qui in eum sperant,’ Caly. On this im- 
portant text see four sermons by Barrow, 
Works, Vol. rv. p. 1 sq. (Oxf. 1830). 
ll. radra] ‘these things, not merely 
the last statement, ds 
( Wegsch.), nor, on the other hand, more 
inclusively ‘omnia que dixi de magno 
pietatis sacram.,’ etc, but, 7d év edcef. 
yuuvacersai, Td mpoomevey Tas dyTiOOceLs, 
Td Toy GywvoseTny Spav, Theod.,— in fact 
all the statements included between the 
last Tatra (ver. 6) and the present repe- 
tition of the pronoun. 
Tmapayyedade| ‘command,’ Vulgate, 
Goth., Auth. Ver. ; not ‘exhort,’ Ham- 
mond, or ‘ mone privatim,’ Grot., but in 


éoTl kK. T. A, 


lV OMEN Yer 


11 [lapayyerre tadta nat didacke. © 


77 


ies 


/ “ , 
dels gou THS VEeOTNTOS KaTappovelitw, GNAA TUTOS 
ywou Tov TLaTOV, €v Oye, év avacTpoph, év 


the usual and proper sense, ‘ precipe,’ 
émitatte, Chrysost., who thus explains 
the use of each term: réy mpaypdtov Te 
Mev Sidackarlas Setra, Ta dé emiTAyIS....-. 
oidv Tt A€yw, Td uh iovdaiCey [comp. ver. 
7) émitayjs Setra by pevtor A€yns Ort 
det Ta HmapxovTa Kevody K.T. A. evTasa 
didackarias xpela, Homil. x111. init. 

12. undeis cov «.7.A.| ‘Let no 
one despise thy youth;’ cov being con- 
nected, not directly with katapp.,—‘ de- 
spiciat te ob juvenilem xtatem’ (Bretsch. 
Lex. ; comp. Leo, al.), but with the fol- 
lowing gen. ts vedtntos. The former 
construction is grammatically tenable 
(Winer, Gr. § 30. 9, p. 183), but is not 
supported by the use of xatapp. in the 
N. T., and is not required by the con- 
text. It has been doubted whether this 
command is addressed (a) indirectly to 
the Church (Huth.), in the sense, ‘no 
man is to infringe on your authority,’ 
avSevTiKwTEpov TapdyyeAAe, Theoph. 1, 
Chrys. 1, or (b) simply to Tim., in the 
sense, ‘let the gravity of thy life supply 
the want of years,’ Hamm., Chrys. 2, al. 
The personal application of the next 
clause, GAAG tUmos yivou K.T. A., seems 
decidedly in favor of (b) ; ‘do not only, 
negatively, give no reason for contempt, 
but, positively, be a living example.’ 
There is no difficulty in the term veérys 
applied to Timothy. It is in a high de- 
gree probable (see Acts xvi. 13) that 
Timothy was young when he first joined 
the apostle (a. p. 50, Wieseler): if he 
were then as much as twenty-five he 
would not be more than thirty-eight (ac- 
cording to Wieseler’s chronology), or 
forty (according to Pearson’s) at the as- 
sumed date of this Epistle —a relative 
veétns when contrasted with the func- 
tions he had to exercise, and the age of 
those (ch. y. 1 sq ) he had to overlook. 


78 


TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. IV. 13. 


aydrn, ev TlaTEL, ev ayvela. 13 Ews Epxowar Tpocexe Ti} avayva- 


&AAG TomOoS K.T.A.] ‘but become an 
example, model, for the believers: SéAets, 
onal, wh Katappoveioda KeAevwv, Eupuxos 
véuos yevov, Theod. Tvzos is similarly 
applied in a moral sense, 1 Pet. v. 3, 
Phil. iii. 17, 1 Thess. i. 7, 2 Thess. iii. 9, 
Tit. ii 7; comp. Rom. vi. 17. In the 
following words the insertion of a comma 
after moray (Lachm., Tisch ) is distinctly 
to be preferred to the ordinary punctua- 
tion (Mill, Scholz), as serving to specify 
with greater force and clearness the qual- 
ities and conditions in which the exam- 
ple of Timothy is to be shown. There 
is, indeed, as Huther suggests, a kind 
of order preserved in the five substan- 
tives which seems designed and signifi- 
cant; Words, whether in teaching or in 
social intercourse ; Conduct (comp. notes 
on Transl. and on Eph. iv. 22), as evinced 
in actions ; Love and Faith, motive forces 
in that inner Christian life of which words 
and conduct are the outward manifesta- 


> vy 
tions: Purity Syr. |Zous? ; not ‘ cas- 


titate,’ Vulg., Beng., either here or ch. v. 
2,—(on the true meaning of ayvds, see 
notes on ch. vy. 2), the prevailing charac- 
teristic of the life as outwardly manifested 
and developed. The omissions of the 
article in this list might be thought to 
confirm the canon of Harless, Eph. p. 29, 
‘that abstracts which specify the quali- 
ties of a subject are anarthrous,’ if that 
rule were not wholly indemonstrable : 
‘see Winer, Gr.§ 19, 1, p. 109. The 
addition, év mvetuati, Rec. (only found 
in KL; great majority of mss.; Arab. 
[Polygl.] ; Theod., Dam., al.), is rightly 
rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most re- 
cent editors. It might have crept into 
the text from 2 Cor. vi. 6; comp. Mill, 
Prolegom. p. 61. 

13. ws Epxopas ‘until I come;’ 
the present is perhaps used rather than 
‘€ws By @ASw (1 Cor. iv. 5), or ews CAdw 


(Luke xv. 4, xvii. 8 [Lachm., Tisch.,}, 
al , compare Herm. de Part. &y, 11. 9, p. 
110 sq.), as implying the strong expec- 
tation which the apostle had of coming, 
eat. ASE Tpds ce TaxLOV, Ch. ili. 14; 
compare Luke xix. 13, John xxi. 22, 
and Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237. On 
the constructions of €ws see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 505 sq. 

ampdcexe] ‘apply (thyself), diligently 
attend to;’ compare notes on chap. i. 4. 
The meaning here and ch. ili. 8. appears 
a little stronger than in ch. i. 4 and iv. 1; 
comp. Herod. 1x. 33, mporéxew yumvact- 
owt, and the good list of exx. in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. 3. c, Vol. 11. p. 1192. 
TH avayvecet| ‘the (public) reading’ 
of the Scriptures, the Old, and probably 
(comp. Col. iv. 16, 1 Thess. v. 27, and 
Thiersch, Hist. of Church, Vol. 1. p. 147, 
Transl.) parts of the New Testament : 
compare Acts xiii. 15, thy avayy. Tod 
vdwou; 2 Cor. iii. 14, ém) TH dvayvecer 
On the public 
reading of the Scriptures in the early 
church, see Bingham, Antig. x111. 4, 2, 
and comp. notes on Gal. iv. 21. 


THS TaAdads SiadsHens. 


TH wapakAnoer k.T. A.] ‘the ‘exhor- 
tation, the teaching:’ both terms occur 
again together, Rom. xii. 7, 8. The 
distinction usually made between wapdka. 
and 6.5., as respectively ‘ public exhorta- 
tion’ and ‘private instruction,’ seems 
very doubtful. Both appear to mark a 
form of public address, the former (as the 
derivation suggests, compare Thceod.) 
possibly directed to the feelings, and ap- 
parently founded on some passage of 
Scripture (see especially Acts xiii. 15, 
and Just. M. Apol. 1. 67, where, how- 
ever, the true reading is mpécxAnoats), the 
latter (7 e&jynoi tay ypapay, Coray) 
more to the understanding of the hearers ; 
perhaps somewhat similar to the (now 
obscured) distinction of ‘sermon’ and 


‘lecture.’ On didack. compare notes on 


Cuap. IV. 14, 15. 


cel, TH Tapakdjoe, TH SidacKaria. 


eM OE Ey. « 


79 


\ ) /. a 
14 un auéret TOD ev col 


xapiopartos, 5 éd0Sn cou dua Tpopyteias peta erriSécews THY YEI- 


pay tod pec Butepiov. 


Eph. iv. 11, and Suicer, Thesaurus s. v. 
Vol. 1. p. 901, 

14. wh a&uerer] ‘Be not neglectful 
of, i.e. ‘do not leave unexercised ;’ 
comp. 2 Tim. i. 6, dvaCwrupeiy Tb xapic- 
pa. The following word xdpioua, with 
the exception of 1 Pet. iv. 10, occurs only 
in St. Paul’s Epp. where it is found as 
many as fourteen times, and in all cases 
denotes ‘a gift emanating from the Holy 
Spirit or the free grace of God.’ Here 
probably, as the context suggests, it prin- 
cipally refers to the gifts of mapdxAnots 
and didack. just specified ; comp. Rom. 
xii. 6—8. On the later use to denote 
Baptism (Clem. Alex. Pedag. 1.6, Vol. 
I. 113, ed. Pott.), see Suicer, Thesaur. 
Vol. 11. p. 1503. 
The parallel passage, 2 Tim. i. 6, clearly 
develops the force of the prep.: 
pioua is as a spark of holy fire within 
him, which he is not to let die out from 
want of attention; comp. Taylor, Forms 
of Liturg. § 22, 23, 
51a tpogntetas] ‘by means of, by the 
medium of prophecy. The meaning of 
this preposition has been needlessly tam- 
pered with: da (with gen.) is not for dé 
with acc. (Just.), nor for eis, nor for éy 
(Beza), nor even, ‘under inspiration,’ 
Peile, but simply points to the medium 
through which the gift was given; comp. 
Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. p. 256. The 
clese union of mpop. with emd. xeipav 
(ued points to the concomitant act, Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 47. h, p. 337) renders the dia 
perfectly intelligible: prophecy and im- 
position of hands were the two co-existent 
(Kviiger, Sprachl. § 68. 18. 1) circum- 
stances which made up the whole pro- 
cess (comp. De Wette), by the medium 
of which the xdpiowa was imparted. The 
association of 6:4 with émd. xelp. is so 
perfectly regular (Acts viii. 18, 2 Tim. i. 


ev cot| 


the xd- 


a {Z 
15 ravTa medeTa, Ev ToVTOLS lau, iva cov 


6), that its use with mpog. gains by the 
association a kind of reflected elucida- 
tion. The emideois xepav or xetpodeoia 
(Cone. Nic. xrx. Cone. Chalced. xv.) 
was a symbolic action, probably derived 
from the Jewish Aa 52D (see Schoette. 
Hor. Vol. 1. p. 874), the outward sign of 
an inward communication of the Holy 
Spirit (Acts viii. 17, ix. 17) for some 
spiritual office (Acts vi. 6) or undertak- 
ing (Acts xiii. 3), implied or expressed : 
(comp. Wiesinger in loc., Neand. Plant- 
ing, Vol. 1. p. 155 (Bohn), and especially 
Hammond’s treatise, Works, Vol. 1. p. 
632—650 ed. 1684). 
only the superior orders of clergy, not 
the sub-deacons, readers, etc. 


In the early church 


(hence 
called a&xepotévytos brnpecia) received 
xetposeciay: see Bingham, Antiy. 111. 1. 
6, and rv. 6. 11. 

mpeoButeptou] ‘presbytery,’ ‘confra- 
ternity of presbyters’ at the place where 
Timothy was ordained (perhaps Lystra, 
if we assume that the ordination closely 
followed his association with St. Paul) 
who conjointly with the apostle (2 Tim. 
i. 6) laid their hands on him. TpeoBv- 
Téptoy (used in Luke xxii. 66 and Acts 
xxii. 5 for the Jewish Sanhedrin) occurs 
very often in the epp. of Ignatius, in the 
present sense (Trall. 7, 18, Philad. 7, 
al.), to denote the college of rpecBirepor, 
the ovyédpiov @eod ( Trail. 3) in each par- 
ticular city or district: comp Thorn- 
dike, Prim. Gov. x11. 9, Vol. 1. p. 75 
(A.-C. Libr.). 

15. tadta weAdéral ‘practise these 
things, exercise thyself in these things,’ 
Hammond, Scholef. Hints, p. 119; par- 
tial antithesis to wh dméAe, verse 14. 
MeAerdw only occurs again in the N. T. 
in a quotation from the LXX, Acts iv. 
25, guedérnoay xevd; Mark xiii. 11, unde 
mederare (rejected by Tisch, and placed 


80 


e ‘ Ac a 

2 TpoKoTn pavepa n TAC. 
emipeve avTois’ 
aKOUVOVTAS TOV. 


in brackets by Zachm.), is very doubtful. 
As there is thus no definite instance from 
which its exact meaning can be elicited 
in the N. T., it seems most accurate to 
adopt the prevailing meaning of the 
word, not ‘ meditari,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
Syr., Arm. (though the idea of ‘ thinking 
about’ really does form the primary idea 
of its root, Donalds. Cratyl. § 472), but 
‘exercere, ‘diligenter tractare,’ Bretsch., 
aoxeiv, Hesych.; compare Diog. Laert. 
E/picur. x. 123, radta mpdtre kal pedréra 
(cited by Wetst.), and see esp. the exx. 
in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 586. The 
transl. of Conyb. (comp. Alf.), after De 
Wette, ‘let these things be thy care’ 
would be more appropriate to tadrd co 
peadérw, comp. Hom. Z//. v. 490, xvil. 
463. 
‘ be occupied, spend thy time, in these things,’ 
Hamm. ; ‘hoe age, his in rebus esto oc- 
cupatus,’ Valck. on Luke ii. 49, compare 
Proy. xxiii. 17, €v pd8@ Kupiov tod. bAnv 
Thy Hucpay, and examples in Wakefield, 
Sylv. Crit. Vol. 1v. p. 198: a stronger 
enunciation of the foregoing words, cor- 
responding to émiweve x. T. A. in ver. 16. 
mpokom%| ‘advance, ‘progress ;’ only 
here and Phil. i. 12, 25 (with a depend- 
. ant gen.): ‘non immerito hee vox a 
Grammaticis contemta est, que nullum 
antiquum nedum Atticum auctorem ha- 
bet,’ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 85. The ‘ad- 
vance’ may be in godliness generally, 2 
Tim. iii. 17 (De Wette), but more prob- 
ably in all the particulars mentioned ver. 
12—14; compare Chrys. uy év 7G Blw 


évy rovTo.s tot] 


pdvoy, GAAG Kab ev TS AdyH TO Bidacka- 
Atk, except that this throws the empha- 
sis a little too much on didackaAla. It is 
curious that Raphel, neither here nor on 
Phil. i. 12, 25, should have adverted to 
the not uncommon use of the word by 


1 Mra TY. 


Cuap. IV, 16. 


lal tN a 
16 &reye ceavT@ Kat TH SidacKanria, 
TOUTO Yap TOL Kal GEeavTOY TwCELS Kal TOUS 


Polyb. €. 9: ist. 1. 12. 7; 15.) doe ean 
4. 2, al. 

16. €méxe x. 7. A.] ‘ Give heed unto 
thyself (thy demeanor and conduct, ver. 
12), and unto the doctrine which thou dost 
deliver, ver.13.’ *Eméxew (‘to fix atten- 
tion upon,’ émxetoSa, Hesych., Suid.) is 
somewhat similarly used in Luke xiv. 7, 
Acts iii. 5, comp. 2 Mace. ix. 25; not 
Phil. ii. 16 (Theodoret), where Adyov 
(wijs éméxovtes is either ‘ occupantes,’ 
Syr., al., or more probably ‘ praetenden- 
tes,’ Beza, al.; see notes 2m loc. St. 
Luke mainly uses the formula mpocéxew 
éauvt@, Luke xii. 1, xvii. 3, xxi. 34, Acts 
y. 35, xx. 27. The difference in mean- 
ing is very slight; éréxew is perhaps 
rather stronger, the idea of ‘rest upon” 
being probably united with that of sim- 
ple direction, see Rost u. Palm, Lez, s. 
vy. c. 3, Vol. 1. p. 1045. Timothy was 
to keep his attention jixed both upon 
himself and his teaching; his teaching 
was to be good (ch. iv. 6) and salutary 
(ch. i. 10), and he himself was practically 
to exemplify it both in word and deed 
(ver. 12). 

‘continue in them ; 


émwipmeve avutors| 
? comp. Col. i. 23, 
emmuevete TH TioTe, and similarly Rom. 
vi. 1, xi. 22,23, Phil. i. 24: this tropical 
use of émm. is thus peculiar to St. Paul. 
The reference of avrots has been very 
differently explained. By comparing 
the above examples of the apostle’s use . 
of émim. with a dat., it would seem nearly 
certain that adrots must be neuter: if the 
apostle had here designed to refer to per- 
sons (avtois masc. ; see Grot., Beng.) he 
would more probably have used zpds 
with an accusative; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 
7, Gal. i. 18. Avdrd& may then be referred 
either to the details implied in &rexe 
k.T.A., or perhaps more probably to all 


Cuap. V. 1—3. 


Behavior of Timothy to- 
ward the elder and younger 
members of the church. 
Distinctions to be observed 
in the support of widows. 


2 ape Butépas 
gas év Tdon ayveia. 


the points alluded to in verse 12 sq. 
(Matth., Huther), so as to form a final 
recapitulatory echo, as it were, of the 
TavTa and rovrois, ver. 15. 

rovTo ydp x.T.A.| ‘for by doing this,’ 
etc.; confirmatory clause. The present 
part. is used with a similarly gerundial 
force (Comp. Herm. Soph. Elect. 57) in 
ver. 6, where it is also better to preserve 
the more exact participial translation. 
This form of protasis involves a temporal 
reference (rather, however, too fully ex- 


v 
pressed by Syr. = p>) and may 


perhaps be distinguished from e with 
pres. indic., or éay with pres. subj., with 
either of which it is nearly synon. (Don- 
alds. Gr. § 505), as connecting a little 
more closely the action of the verb in the 
protasis with that of the verb in the apo- 
dosis. : It is singular that De Wette 
assigns a higher meaning to o@(ew in 
reference to Timothy, but a lower (‘ Be- 
festigung’) in reference to his hearers. 
In both it has its normal and proper 
sense, not merely ‘servabis ne seducam- 
ini,’ Bengel (comp. Theod.), but ‘ salvum 
facies,’ Vulg., ‘salvabis,’ Clarom., and, 
as Wiesinger well remarks, conveys this 
important truth, ‘ that in striving to save 
others, the minister is really caring for 
his own salvation.’ On the force of kal 
—rai, see notes on ver. 10. 


CuapterR V. 1. tpecBurtépa| ‘an 
elder, Auth. Ver., 7. e. an elderly man,’ 
not ‘a presbyter; so Syr., Vulg.: apa 
7d dkiwud pnow ; ovk ofwat, GAAG wep) Tay- 
wos yeynpaxdtos, Chrys. This interpreta- 
tion is rendered nearly certain by the an- 
tithetical vewrépous in the following verse, 
and by ws matépa in the adversative 

11 


eT LO'r FY. 


81 


V. IIpecBurépm py erimdjEns adda tra- 
pakdrE, @s TaTépa, vewTépovs ws adedpous, 


e Ve / id > 
@s pmtépas, vewTépas ws aoeh- 


3 / Las Ni ” f 
Xijpas Twa Tas ovtws xpas. 


clause. The exhortation, as Leo ob- 
serves, follows very suitably after the 
reference (ch. iv. 12) to the vedrns of 
Tim., ‘ita se gerat erga seniores ut re- 
vera deceat virum juniorem.’ 

wh emimaAnéns| ‘do not sharply rebuke, 


reprimand.’ -EmimAnttrew (an am. 


v 
Aeyduevoy in the N. Test.), Syriac im 


[increpavit], vouSereiy me wappnoiav Kar 
avotepétnta, Coray (mod. Greek), seems 
to involve the notion of sharpness and © 
severity: Td emumd. kal kéwrTew A€yeTat.... 
éri SE Kal paorti¢ev....ap’ ov Kal Td Ao- 
yous emimAnooew elpytat, Eustathius. on 
Homer, J/. x. 500 (cited by Wetstein). 
The usual form in the New Testament 
is émtiuav, used very frequently by the 
first three evangelists, but only once by 
St. Paul, 2 Tim. iv. 2. 
The grammatical construction requires 
mapardadet to be supplied. The context, 
however, seems to suggest a more gene- 
ral word, e.g. vovdéra (comp. 2 Thess. 
lil. 15, vouSetetre ws &deApor), a mean 
term, as it were, between émimAntte and 
mapaxdde. This, however, was proba- 
bly not inserted on account of the follow- 
ing mpeoBurépas, where a milder term , 
would again be more appropriate. 

2. év mdon ayvetal ‘inall purity; 
with exclusive reference to the vewrépas : 
the bishop was so to order his conversa- 
tion to the younger women of his flock, 
with such purity, as not to afford any 
ground even for suspicion (Chrysost.). 
The rule of Jerome (/pist. 2) is simple ; 
“omnes puellas et virgines Christi aut 
sequaliter ignora aut xqualiter dilige.’ 

3. xhpas tipal ‘pay due regard to 
widows,’ Conyb. The meaning of timdw 
and the connection of the following ver- 


vewTépous| 


82 


PPO? HY. 


Cuap. V. 4. 


? , , t x ” L/ lal \ 
4 @f O€ TIS YI}pa TéxVa 1 EKyoVA EXEL, pavSaveTwoay TPATov TOV 


ses, 3-16, has been from the earliest times 
so much a matter of dispute, that it is 
very difficult to arrive at a certain deci- 
sion. On the whole, when we observe 
the economic terms, @moiBas ar0d.8. (ver. 
4), mpovoeiy (ver. 8), and esp. emapr. Tats 
bvtws xnpais (ver. 16), it seems best with 
De Wette (after Theodoret, al.) to give 
Tiua a somewhat extended meaning, — 
‘honor,’ not by a simple exhibition of 
respect (woAATSs yap SeovTat Timijs mewovw- 
uévat, Chrys..—a somewhat insufficient 
reason), but also by giving material proofs 
of it; €Adet kal Ta dvarykata xophrye, The- 
ophyl. The translation of Peile, al., 
‘support, provide for,’ tpépe we eAenuo- 
otvas, Coray (Romaic), involves too 
great a departure from the simple sense ; 
the context, however. does certainly seem 
to require some intermediate translation, 
which, without obscuring the primary 
and proper meaning of tiudw, may still 
leave the latter and less proper meaning 
fairly discernible: comp. tums ver. 17, 
Matth. xv. 4 sq. If this view be correct, 
ver. 3—8 will seem to relate specially to 
the support widows are to receive, ver. 
9—16 to their qualifications for an office 
in the church ; see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 
309, and notes on ver. 9. On the posi- 
tion which widows occupied in the early 
church, see Bingham, Antiq. vii. 4. 9, 
Winer, RWB. Art ‘ Witwen.’ 

Tas OYTHWS XHpas| ‘who are widows 
indeed :’ 2. e. as ver. 4, 5, and especially 
ver. 16, clearly explain it,— destitute and 
desolate, Tas wh exovoas aAAaxddev ovde- 
piav Bonserav, Coray. There seems then 
no sufficient ground either (a) for assign- 
ing to xfpa its ecclesiastical sense (Baur, 
Pailus, p. 497, who compares Ignatius 
Smyrn. 13, tas mapSévous Tas Aeyouevas 
xhpas; see Coteler in loc. Vol. 11. p. 38), 
so that 7) bvtws x. is ‘a widow proper,’ 
opp. to a xhpa in the official meaning of 
the term ; or (b) for giving 7 dvtws xhpa 


a strictly ethical reference, ‘bona vidua 
et proba,’ Leo; for the ‘nervus argu- 
menti’ in both cases, viz. the clause 
HATiucev em) Tov Oedv, does not mark ex- 
clusively the religious attitude, but the 
earthly isoijation of 7 dvTws xhpa, and her 
freedom from the distractions of ordinary 
domestic life; comp i Cor. vii. 33, 84, 
and, thus far, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 
p- 154 (Bohn). 

4. €i B€ tis xhpal ‘ But ifany wid- 
ow,’ i. e. ‘in every case in which a widow 
has,’ ete.; comp. Syriac, where this evi- 
dent opposition to 7 dvrws x. is still more 
distinctly maintained. Having spoken 
of the ‘ widows indeed,’ the apostle pro- 
ceeds to show still more clearly his mean- 
ing by considering the case of one who 
does not fall under that class. 
éxyova| ‘descendants,’ or more special- 
ly, as the context implies, ‘ grandchil- 
dren ;’ ‘ children’s children,’ Syr. ‘ neph- 
ews,’ Auth. Ver.,—in the original, but 
now antiquated sense of the word ; com- 
pare Thom. M. p. 850 (ed. Bern.). The 
term éx-yovoy only occurs here in the N. 
T., but is sufficiently common in the 
LXX, as well as in earlier Greek, see 
exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 
favasavetwoar| ‘let learn.’ 
Who? The x7pa implied in the collec- 
tively-taken xhpa? or the réxva and &- 
yova® The former is supported by 
Vulg., Clarom., Chrys., and Theod. ; 
the latter, however, which has_the sup- 
port of Syr., Theoph, Gicum. 2, al., 
seems more in accordance both with the 
context generally, and with the use of 
the special terms evoeBeivy (see below) 
and émoiBas arodi8. The explanation of 
Chrys., ar7ASov éxeivor (oi mpdyovor) ..... 
év Tots exydvois avTovd dueiBov, arodldou 
7d dpetAnua did Tay maldwv, can scarcely 
be regarded as otherwise than artificial 
and unsatisfactory. 7 p@tov] ‘ first,’ 
scil. ‘before thou hast to do it,’ De W. 


them 


Cuar. Via 


1 YA M,O AME 


83 


16 3 > Lal Ny 3 MY b) } 5 r A “4 a 
lovov oiKkoy evocPeiv Kal apoiBas amrodidovat Tots Tpoyovois’ TOTO 
yap €otw arrodextov éevwmriov Tod Qeod. »* 1 dé dvTws ypa Kal 


evaoeBetv] ‘to be dutiful, ‘to evince 
( filial) piety towards,’ ‘ barusnjan,’ Goth. 
(Massm.); compare Acts xvii. 23, 6 ay- 
vooovtes evoeBetre (Lachmann, Tisch.). 
This verb can hardly be referred to the 
Xhpat, as it certainly cannot be taken ac- 
tively, ‘domum suam regere,’ Vulg., 
and not very plausibly, ‘ to practise piety 
in respect of,’ Matth.; whereas when re- 
ferred to the children, its primitive sense 
is but slightly obscured ; compare Philo, 
de Dec. Orac. § 23, Vol. 11. p. 200 (ed. 
Mang.), where storks are similarly said 
eboeBeiv and ynporpopeiv. The expres- 
sion Toy %1oy ofkoy is somewhat singular 
in such a connection, but the remark of 
De Wette (who has elucidated the whole 
passage with great ability) that ofoyv was 
expressly used to mark the duty as an 
act of ‘family feeling and family honor,’ 
seems fairly to meet the difficulty. Tov 
ZSiov marks the contrast between assist- 
ance rendered by members of the same 
family and that supplied by the com- 
parative strangers composing the local 
church. Kat dmorBas k.T.A.] 
‘and to requite their parents ;’ further ex- 
planation of roy 7. ofk. edocBetv. The 
expression dwoiBas arod.ddvau is illustrat- 
ed by Elsner, and Wetst. in loc. (comp. 
Hesiod, Op. 188, toxetow amd Sperrhpia 
dveiv), and while perfectly suitable in the 
ease of children, would certainly seem 
very unusual in reference to parents. 
The duty itself is enforced in Plato, Legy. 
iv. 717; see also Stobeeus, F/oril. Tit. 
79, and especially Taylor, Duct. Dub. 
111. 5.3. Tpoyovo: does not commonly 
refer to living parents (De W. however, 
cites Plato, Legg. x1. 931), but in the 
present case suitably balances the term 
éxyova, and seems adopted as_ briefly 
comprehending both generations, moth- 
ers or grandmothers. TOUTO 
yap x.7.A.] See notes on ch. ii. 3. 


5.7 8& dytTws xhpa| ‘ But (not 
‘now’ Auth. Ver.) she that is a widow 
indeed ;’ sharp and emphatic contrast to 
the foregoing, serving to specify still 
more clearly to Timothy the characteris- 
tics of the ‘ widow indeed,’ 
kal wepovwmuern| ‘and left desolate ;’ 
explanatory, not merely additional 
(Schleierm.) characteristic. Matthies 
urges that if this were an explanatory 
characteristic, it would have been either 
enovapevn eotiv, or 7 meuovwuevy. This 
does not seem necessary; the apostle 
probably feeling and remembering the 
adjectival nature of yfjpa [xa-, perhaps 
Sanser. hd, ‘deserere,’ Pott, Htym. Vol. 
1. p. 199; but comp. Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 280, 287, and Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 
11. p. 188], adds another epithet which 
explains, and more exactly marks, the 
characteristic (orbitas) which is involved 
in xnpa, and forms the principal ‘subject 
of thought. HAwiKEeV K.T.A.] 
‘hath placed her hopes on God ;’ ‘hath 
hoped and still hopes ;’? see Winer, Gr. § 
41. 4, p. 242. On the distinction be- 
tween éAmi@w with ém and accus. and 
with em} and dat. see notes on ch. iv. 10. 
mpogpméve.| ‘abides in;’ the preposi- 
tion apparently intensifying the meaning 
of the simple verb; see Acts xi. 23, 77 
mpovsere: THs Kapd. mpocuevery TH Kupie, 
xiii 43, mpoomeveww TH XapiTL; Comp. TH 
mpocevxh mpockaprepev, Acts i. 14, Rom. 
xii. 12, Col. iv. 2, and consult Rost u. 
Palm, Ler. s. v. mpés, C. c, Vol. 11. p. 
1162. On the distinction between déyo1s 
and mpocevxh, see notes on ch. il. 1, and 
on Eph. vi. 18. It may be observed 
that the article is prefixed to both: it 
clearly might have been omitted before 
the latter; St. Paul, however, chooses to 
regard prayer under two separate aspects ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 117 note. 
vuktos Kal fucpas| ‘night and day, 


84 


1 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. .V. 6, 7. 


, ve SN \ \ \ (4 ta) pA 
pewovwopevn HArmiKev ert Tov Ocdv Kal mpoopever Tais Senoeow 
kal Tais mpocevyais vuKTos Kal nuépas. § 1) b€ orraTadoca, Soa 


TESENKED. 


i. €. grammatically considered, within the 
space of time expressed by the substan- 
tives: see Donalds. Gr. § 451, Kviiger, 
Sprachl. § 47. 2, and comp. notes on ch. 
ii. 6 ad fin. St. Luke, in the very paral- 
lel case of Anna, ch. ii. 37, uses the ace. 
vuKTa Kat juepav, but there the previous 
occurrence of ynoreias renders the accu- 
sative and perhaps the order (fasts appy. 
began at eve, Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Fas- 
ten,’ compare Lev. xxiii. 32) perfectly 
appropriate; in Acts xxvi. 7 and in 2 
Thess. iii. 8 (Tisch.) the accus. is appy. 
hyperbolical. On the order vuxros rab 
je. (always in St. Paul), comp. Lobeck, 
Paralip. p. 62 sq. It may be observed 
that St. Luke adopts the order vurr. Kat 
ju. with the ace. (comp. Mark iv. 27), 
and inverts it when he uses the gen. (opp. 
to Mark y. 5). St. John (Rey. iv. 8, 
vii. 15, xii. 10, xiv. 11, xx. 10) uses only 
the gen. and the order jy. kat vurtds. Is 
the order always to be explained from 
internal considerations, and not rather 
to be referred to the habit of the writer ? 

6.7 5¢ cmatadrddsoa| ‘but she that 
liveth riotously ;’ one of the sins of Sodom 
and her daughters (Ezek. xvi. 49), form- 
ing a sharp contrast to the life of self- 
denial and prayer of 7 évtws xhpa. Bmra- 
Tarkav only occurs again in the N. Test., 
James vy. 5, étpuphoate nab eomatadrn- 
care; comp. Ezek. loc. cit., ebSnvig éona- 
tddwy, Ecclus. xxi. 15, 6 omataddy. As 
the derivatidn of each word suggests, 
onataAdw [SIIA-, cognate with oraddw] 
points more to the ‘ prodigality’ and 
‘wastefulness’ (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 
1. p. 592), the somewhat synonymous 
word rpuddw (Spimrw), more to the ‘ ef- 
feminacy’ and ‘luxury’ of the subject: 
so also rightly Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 
193. The present verb is thus, etymo- 
logically considered, more allied in mean- 


7 ‘ na , vd > I 5 
Kal TAUTA Trapayyerre, Wa aveTLANUTTTOL WoW 


ing to dowtws (qv, comp. notes on Eph. 
y. 18, though it is occasionally found 
(Theano, ad Eubul. p. 86, ed. Gale, ra 
oTaTadkGvTa Tey maidiwy) in a sense 
scarcely at all differing from tpupax. 
See also Suicer, Thesaur.s. v. Vol. 11. 
p- 992. (aoa TES HKEY] 
“ts dead while she liveth;’ so Rev. iii. 1, 
Gis, kal vexpds ef, compare Eph. iv. 18. 
The meaning is rightly expressed by the 
Greek expositors, e. g. Theophyl. (most 
incorrectly quoted by Huther), cay dox7 
Giv tabrny thy Cohy Thy aicdnthy [comp. 
Gal. ii. 20] TéeSvnke kaTd mvedua: simi- 
larly Theodoret, but with less theologi- 
cal accuracy of expression. Her life is 
merely a conjunction of soul and body, 
destitute of all union with the higher and 
truly quickening principle; comp. Ols- 
hausen, Opusc. p. 196. Numerous quo- 
tations involving similar sentiments will 
be found in Wetst. zn loc. ; the most per- 
tinent is Philo, de Profug. § 10, Vol. 1. p. 
554 (ed. Mang.), (aves vitor TeSvfkact 
kal TeQunkdtes (@ou kK. T.A.; comp. Loes- 
ner, Obs. p. 404. 

7. tavtal ‘these things:’ what 
things? Those contained (a) in ver. 3 
—6 only, Theodoret (appy.), and Hu- 
ther; or (b) in ver. 6 only, Chrys.; or 
(c) in ver. 5 and 6, De Wette and Wie- 
sing. Of these (a) is very plausible on 
account of the simple mandatory force of 
mapayyeAAe, but involves the difficulty 
that averiA. must then be referred to 
Téxva and éxyova as well as the widows, 
whereas the latter seem manifestly the 
principal subjects. The use of rat (not 
simply tadrva as in ch. iv. 6) is in favor 
of (b), but then again it seems impossible 
to disunite two verses so closely connect- 
ed by the antithesis involved as ver. 5 
and 6. On the whole, then, it seems 
best to adopt (c), and to refer the pro- 


Cuap. V. 8, 9. 


1 TIMOTHY. * $8 


> f fal PANDA Si A a > / > a \ 
8 ef O€ Tis THY idlwy Kal ddioTa TOY oiKElwv od TPOvoel, THV 


NA . 
TioTW HpvyTat Kal éotw amlatou xeipwv. 


Presbyteral widows must 
be sixty years of age and of 


9 Xipa KatareyéoSo pur) EXatrov érav é£y- 


good character ; refuse younger widows, whom I desire rather to marry, and not to give offence. 


noun to the two foregoing verses: Kat 
thus binds ver. 7 to ver. 5 and 6, while 
ver. 8 includes the whole subject by a 
still more emphatic statement of the rule 
involved in ver. 4, but not then further 
expanded, as the statement of the differ- 
ent classes and positions of the widows 
would otherwise have been interrupted. 
mapayyeAde] ‘command ;’ see notes 
on ch, iv. 11: the choice of this stronger 
word seems to imply that the foregoing 
contrast and distinction between 7 évTws 
xnpa and 7 omar. was intended to form 
the basis for a rule to the church. 
avewlAnumror| ‘erreproachable;’ the 
widows, not the widows and their de- 
scendants, see above. On the meaning 
of the word, see notes on ch. iii. 2. 

8. ef 5€ «.7.A.] Recurrence to the 
same subject and to the same persons, 
Texva Kal éxyova, as in ver. 4, but, as the 
ts implies, in the form of a more general 
statement. The 5¢ (not = ydp, as Syr.) 
is correctly used, as the subjects of this 
verse stand in a sort of contrast to the 
widows, the subjects of ver. 7. 

TOY idiwy K.T.A.]| ‘his own (relatives) 
and especially those of his own house ;’ 
5.01 here marks the relationship, ofke?o:, 
those who were not only relations, but 
also formed part of the family,—obs ka- 
ToLKOUYTAS THY avTHY oiKklay Tuyyevets, Co- 
ray ; ‘domestici, qualis vel maxime est 
mater aut avia vidua, domi,’ Bengel. 
Lachmann, on fair uncial authority AD 
FG], omits the second réy; this would 
bind the %:o: and oixetos more explicitly 
into one class; Winer, Gr. § 19 4, p. 
116. On oixetor, comp. notes on Gal. vi. 
10. Itis worthy of notice that the Es- 
senes were not permitted to give relief to 
their relatives without leave from their 


a 


éritpora, though they might freely do so 
to others in need; see Joseph. Bell. Jud. 
II. 8. 6. ; 
not provide for ;’? only again Rom, xii. 
17 (from Prov. iii. 4) and 2 Cor. viii. 21 ; 
in both cases with an accus. rez (Jelf, Gr. 
§ 496, obs. 1), in the former passage in 
the middle, in the latter (Zachm.) in the 
active voice. On the connection «7 od 
(here perfectly intelligible as od is in such 
close connection with mpovoe?), see the 
copious list of examples in Gayler, Par- 
tic. Neg. pp..99—115, and notes on ch. 
Tl. 5 THY TloTLY HpynTratl 
‘he hath denied the faith ;’ not ‘ doctri- 
nam Christianam,’ but ‘the (Christian) 
faith,’ considered as a rule of life; com- 
pare notes on Gal. i. 23. His acts are a 
practical denial of his faith: faith and 
love are inseparable ; in not showing the 
one he has practically shown that he is 
not under the infiuence of the other. On 
the meaning of miotis,. see Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p 128 sq. 
amioarov| Not a‘ misbeliever’ (2 Cor. 
iv. 4, Tit. i. 15), but an ‘ unbeliever,’ opp. 
to 6 mlatedwy, 1 Cor. xiv, 22 sq. Such 
a one, though he might bear the name of 
Christian, would be really worse than a 
heathen, for the precepts of all better 
heathenism forbade such an unnatural 
selfishness ; see Pfanner, Theol. Gent. xr. 
22, p. 320, and compare the quotations 
in Stobeus, Flori]. Tit. 79. 

9 Xhpa Katadeyérdsw xK.T.A.| 
‘ As widow let no one be put on the list, ete.” 
In this doubtful passage it will be best to 
consider (a) the simple meaning and 
grammatical structure ; (b) the interpre- 
tation of the clause. First, then, cata-. 
Aéyew (katararrew, Suid.) simply means 
‘to enter upon 2 list’ (see examples in 


ov mpovoe?| ‘does 


86 


KOVTA yeyovvla, Evds avdpos yuvn, 


Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1624), 
the contents and object of which must 
be deduced from the context. Next, we 
must observe that xfpa is in fact the pre- 
dicate ‘als Witwe werde verzeichnet,’ 
Winer, Gr. § 64.4, p. 521. Grammar 
and Lexicography help us no further. 
(b) Interpretation: three explanations 
have been advanced; (a) the somewhat 
obvious one that the subject of the pre- 
ceding clause is simply continued ; so 
Chrys. in loc., the other Greek expositors 
and the bulk of modern expositors. The 
objections to this are, grammatically con- 
sidered, the apparently studied absence of 
any connecting particle; exegetically 
considered, the high improbability that 
when criteria had been given, ver. 4 sq., 
fresh should be added, and those of so 
very exclusive a nature ; would the Church 
thus limit her alms? (8) That of Schlei- 
ermacher, Mack, and others, that deacon- 
esses are referred to: against this the ob- 
jection usually urged seems decisive,— 
that we have no evidence whatever that 
deaconesses and xnpat are synonymous 
terms (the passage in Ignat. Trull. 13, 
cannot here fairly be made use of, first 
on account of the doubtful reading ; sec- 
ondly, the suspicion which now hangs 
about the whole epistle, see’ Cureton, 
Corp. Iyn. p. 333), and that the age of 
60, though deriving a specious support 
from Cod. Theod. xvi. 2. 27 (compare, 
however, Cone. Chale. ec. 15, where the 
age is fixed at 40), is wholly incompati- 
ble with the active duties (comp. Bing- 
ham, Antiqg. 11. 22. 8 sq.) of such an 
office: (vy) The suggestion of Grot., ably 
éxpanded by Mosheim, and followed by 
De Wette, Wiesing., Huth. (Evnlett. § 
4), that an order of widows (xnpav xépos, 
Chrrsost. Hom. in Div. N. T. Loc. 31, 
compare Tertull. de Vel. Virg. 9, and the 
other reff. in Mosheim) is here referred 
to, whose duties apparently consisted in 


TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. V. 10. 
30 oe. a 
eV Epos Kadols fapTupoU- 


the exercise of superintendence over, and 
the ministry of counsel and consolation 
(see Tertull. /. c.) to, the younger women ; 
whose office in fact was, so to say, pres- 
byteral (mpeoBurides) rather than dia- 
conic. The external evidence for the 
existence (though not necessarily the spe- 
cial ecclesiastical organization) of such a 
body even in the earliest times is so fully 
satisfactory, and so completely in har- 
mony with the internal evidence supplied 
by ver. 10 sq., that on the whole (7) may 
be adopted with some confidence ; see 
the long note of Wiesinger in loc., and 
Huther, Linleit. § 4, p. 46. We 
thus find noticed in this chapter the xnpa 
in the ordinary sense; 7 dvtws x., the 
desolate and destitute widow; 7 katei- 
Aeyeevn xnpa, the ecclesiastical or pres- 
byteral widow. yeyovuiais 
now properly referred by Lachm., Tisch., 
al., to wh @ZAaTTov k.T.A., see examples 
in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 592. The 
construction, @Aattov 4} érn é&hkovTa, 
would be perhaps more correct, but the 
somewhat concise gen. is perfectly intel- 
ligible. évds avipbs yurn| 
‘the wife of one husband:’ comp. ch. iii. 
2. It is obvious that this can only be 
contrasted with successive polygamy, and 
cannot possibly be strained to refer to 
the legitimacy of the marriage (compare 
Beng.). In plain terms the woman was 
to be univira: so Tertull. ad Uzor. 1. 7, 
‘preescriptio Apostoli.....viduam allegi 
in ordinem [ordinationem, Seml.] nisi 
jiniviram non concedit ;’ compare notes 
on ch. iii, 2, and the copious list of exx. 
in Wetst. in loc. 


10. évy €pyots Kkadots kT. A] 
‘well-reported of in the matter of good 
works,’ scil. ‘ for good works ;” compare 
notes on Titus iii. 8 ’Ev denotes the 
sphere to which the woman’s actions and 
the consequent testimony about them 
was confined. Huther cites Heb. xi. 2 


Cuae! V. 10; 11. 1 TIMOTHY. 87 


(Pen >» r S445 , y er , ” 
pevn, et erexvotpopycer, ef eevoddynoev, et ayiwy Todas évivper, 
> Sr B , Ly fA > Ay ar > S a 3 ny IS 
ef SAvBopévows emypKecev, eb TavTi Epyp ayaS@ éernkorovSnoev. 
“ 0 , a 
11 Newrépas 5é ynpas Twapastod" OTav yap Katactpyyiacwow Tod 


ll. xatacrpnyidowow] So CDKL; most mss.; Chrysost., Theodoret, Theoph., 
(Eeum. (Griesb., Scholz, De W. e sil.. Wordsw.). Lachm., Tisch., Alf. here read 
kataotpnvidcovow with AFG; 31; Chrys. (Cod.). Though the future might fairly 
be borne with, as in Rey. iv. 9 (comp. pres. Mark xi. 25), the external authority 
does not seem sufficient, for it must be remembered that F and G, even in errors of 
transcription (‘ mira est utriusque [codicis] consensio in lectionibus ipsisque multis 
calami erroribus,’ 'Tisch.), are practically little more than one authority. Moreover, 
the only correct principle of explaining these usages of ééy and d7ay with the indic., 
—viz., the restriction of the whole conditional force to the particle, and the absence 
of necessary internal connection between the verb in the protasis and that in the 
apodosis—does not seem here to apply. St. Paul does not apparently desire to 
mark the mere relation of time, but the ethical connection between katactp. and 
you. SéA.: a weariness of Christ’s yoke involves a further and more decided lapse. 
On the use of éav and éray with the indic., see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 468—478. 


as evincing the use of ey to mark the 
reason of the paptupta, but there ey is 
simply ‘in;’ in hae fide constituti,’? Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346, note. 
petodat appears frequently used in the 
NES etmurActevi. 3, x. 22; xvi. 2 al., 
in special reference to a good testimony. 
The simple meaning is retained by Syr., 
Vulg., Goth., al. el 
éetekvotpogdnaev] ‘if she (ever) 
brought up children ;’ hypothetical clause, 
ultimately dependent on kataad., but still 
also more immediately explanatory of 
épy. kad. It is doubtful whether rexvo- 
tpopeiv is to be confined to the widow’s 
own children (Vulg., Chris. and Greek 
commentt ), or extended also to the or- 
phans she might have brought up, ‘ ec- 
clesie commodo’ (Beng.). The latter 
seems most probable, especially as in two 
passages which have been adduced, Her- 
mann Past. Mund. 1.2, and Lucian, de 
Mort. Peregr. § 12, widows and orphans 
are mentioned in a suggestive connection. 
In either case, 7d evoeBGs Spépa (The- 
od.) is necessarily implied, though not 
expressed in the word. 

é€fevo0d5dx na evr] ‘entertained strangers,’ 


Maprtv- 


dr. Aeyou., but comp. Matth. xxv. 35. 
The sequence of duties may have been 
suggested by the relations of proximity ; 
dpas THs Tavtaxod THY oikelwy Tas evep- 
yeolas Tay GAAOTpiwy mpoTidyat, Chrys. ; 
the widow’s own children would clearly 
be comprehended in, and even form the 
first objects of the texvotpodia. 

ei ayiwy K.7.A] ‘if she (ever) washed 
the feet of the suints;’ an act not only 
connected with the rites of Oriental hos- 
pitality (Jahn, Archeol. § 149), but de- 
monstrative of her humility (1 Sam. 
xxy. 41,—it was commonly a servant’s 
office, Elsner, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 338), her 
love (compare Luke vii. 38), and, it 
might be added, the practical heartiness 
(comp. Chrysostom) of her hospitality : 
‘non dedignetur quod fecit Christus fa- 
cere Christianus,’ August. in Joan. Tract. 
LVIII. 
“relieved ;’ éBonsnoev, Hesych., compare 
Polyb. Hist. 1.51.10, where it is used 
as nearly synonymous with émBondeiv. 
It thus need not be restricted merely to 
alms (aropta émapretv, Clem. Alex.. Strom. 
I. 10, compare Vales. on Euseb. Hist. 
vir. 5), nor SAiBou. to ‘ paupertate pres- 


éemhApKrecer] 


88 


Xpwictov, yapelv YéXovaw, 2 


sis’ (Beng.), but, as apparently Syriac 


uA 
Auod] [refocillavit], may refer to the 


relief of necessity in its most general 
form ; kal dia xpnudrov, kal di mpoota- 
ctas, kat weortelas, Theophyl. 
emnkordovanaer] ‘followed after ;’ 
comp. 1 Pet. ii. 21, émaxoAouseiy Tois 
txveow: the em) does not appear to in- 
volve any idea of intensity, scil. tpodduws 
kad kat’ Yxvn, Coray, Auth. Ver. (comp. 
Steph. in Thesaur. s. v.), but only that 
of direction. ‘The sense is not very differ- 
ent to that implied in &iéKew 7d dyaSdv, 
1 Thess. v.15; compare Plato, de Rep. 
Il. p. 370 6, 7@ mpattopévw émarodov- 
Seiv, where the next words, uh év mapép- 
you “épet, supply the notion of mpoSupta ; 
see ib. Phaedo, p. 107 B, where the force 
of the compound also does not seem very 
strongly marked. The meaning is rightly 
conveyed by Chrys., 5nAotvrés éorw, drt 
ei kal wh adTh adTd epydoacda Hdvvjdn, 
GAN buws exowdyynoev, STovpynoe. 

11. vewtépas] Not necessarily, with 
studied reference to ver. 9, ‘ widows un- 
der sixty years of age,’ Wiesing., but, 
as the context seems to imply, ‘ younger’ 
with nearly a positive sense, ver.2. * 
mapattod]| ‘shun,’ or, as the contrast 
with katadeyéodw (ver. 9) seems to re- 
quire,—‘ decline’ (‘refuse,’ Auth. Ver., 
amdBadre, Coray,) scil. ‘to put on the 
katdAoyos of the presbyteral widows.’ 
They were not necessarily to be excluded 
from the alms of the Church (Taylor, 
E/pise. § 14), but were only to be held in- 
eligible for the ‘collegium viduarum ;’ 
compare however ver. 16. On raparod, 
compare notes on ch. iv. 7: the regular 
meaning (as Huther properly observes) 
suggested by ch. iv. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit. 
iii. 10, need not here be lost sight of; 
Timothy was to shun them, and not en- 
tertain their claims ; ‘ noli causem earum 
suscipere,’ Beng. 


1 ARO Bey. 


Cnap. V. 11, 12. 


Eyovoal Kpia OTL THY TPaTHV 


étav Kkatactpny.| ‘when they have 
come to wax wanton against Christ,’ Auth. 
Vers., ‘lascivieru[i|nt,’ Beza; the aor. 
subj. with drav, marking an action which 
takes place at some single point of time 
distinct from the actual present, but oth- 
erwise undefined ; see Winer, Gir. § 42. 
5, p. 275, and notes on 2 Thess. i. 10. 
This translation of catacrp. may be fully 
retained if ‘lascivire’ be taken more in . 
its simple (‘ instar juventorum quae cum 
pabulo ferociunt,” Scul. ap. Pol. Syn.) 
than in its merely sexual reference (qu 
fornicatee sunt in injuriam Christi, Je- 
rome, Fpist. 11, al. 223), though this, 
owing to the yaueiy SéAovor, not simply 
fut. yauhoovoww [usual later form], cannot 
wholly be put out of sight. Srpyvidw, a 
word of later comedy (see Lobeck, Phryn. 
p. 381), implies the exhibition of ‘ over. 
strength,’ ‘restiveness,’ and thence of 
fulness of bread’ (Antiph. ap. Athen. 
111, 127), and ‘ wanton luxury ;’ comp. 
Rey. xviii. 7,9. The adjective otpnvis 
is far more probably connected with the 
Sabine ‘strena’ (Donalds. Varron. 1v. 
2), and the Lat. ‘ strenuus’ (Pott, Etym. 
Vol. 1. p. 198) than with topés, tpavés, 
which is suggested by Lobeck. The 
prep. kara expresses the direction of the 
action (Rost u. Palm, Lew. s. v. card, Iv. 
2), and points to the object against which 
the otpivos was shown: comp. katakav- 
xaoda, James il. 13. 

12. Zxovoat xepipa] ‘having, bear- 
ing about with them a judgment that,’ ete. ; 
comp. pdBov %xew, verse 20, auapriav 
zxev, John xv. 22. The judgment or 
sentence is a load which they bear about 
with them (comp. Gal. v. 10) ; and this 
judgment is that 79éryoav kK. T. A. “Ort 
is thus not causal, but objective, and so 
must not, asin J/ill, be preceded by a 
comma,—a punctuation probably sug- 
gested by a misinterpretation of xpiua. 
This it need scarcely be said is not for 


Cuap. V. 13. 


mictw 7XéTncav' 3 dma Oé Kal 


katdkpa (‘damnationem,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom. ; katd«piow, Theophyl.), much less 
= ‘ punishment’ (beladen sich mit Straf- 
barkeit,’ Mack), but retains its usual and 
proper meaning. The context will alone 
decide the nature of the judgment, wheth- 
er favorable or unfavorable ; comp. notes 
on Gal v. 10, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 
94. Thy TwpOTHY K.T.A.| 
‘they broke their first faith ;’ clearly, as 
it is explained by the Greek commentt., 
their engagement (cvvdijxnv, Chrys.) to 
Christ not to marry again, which they 
virtually, if not explicitly, made when 
they attempted to undertake the duties 
of the presbyteral office, as évds avdpds 
yuvaikes ; So Theodoret, te Xpiorg ovy- 
Tatduevor coppdvws Cav év xnpela devre- 
The only seeming 
difficulty is mpérnv, not mporépay, as the 
mpoTn TiatTis was really to the first hus- 
band. This is easily explained: there 
are now only two things put in evidence, 
faith to Christ and faith to some second 
husband. In comparing these two, the 
superlative, according to a very common 
Greek habit of speaking, is put rather 
than the comparative ; see Winer, Gr. § 
35. 4. 1, p. 218. The phrase adereiy 
niotw, ‘ fidem irritam facere,’ is illustrat- 
ed by Wetstein and esp. Raphel in Joc. ; 
the latter cites Polyb. Hist.vi11. 2. 5, x1. 
20 es SOU LOn Ove REV Gs. Ga Le 
numerous illustrations that the language 
of St. Paul’s unquestioned Epistles has 
received from Polybius are well-known 
and admitted. This persistent similar- 
ity, in the case of an Epistle of which 
the genuineness has been (unreasonably) 
doubted, is a subsidiary argument which 
ought not to be lost sight of. 

13. Gua 5€ x. 7.A.] There is some 
difficulty in the construction; pavSdy. is 
nsually connected with mepiepx., but, un- 
less with De Wette and Wiesinger we 
plainly assume that the participle is in- 


puis dutAovor ydmos. 


1 TIMOTHY. 


89. 


apyat pavSdvovaewy TrepvepXopuevat 


correctly used for the infinitive, we shall 
have an incongruous sense, for pavddve 
meprepxduevos can only mean ‘I learn 
that Lam going about,’ Jelf, Gr. § 683. 
Again if with Wordsworth we translate 
‘being idle they are learners, running 
about’ we have an absolute use of uay- 
Sdvw (compare, however, 2 Tim. iii. 7) 
and a dislocation of words that seem 
harsh and unnatural. It will be best 
then, with Syr., Chrysost., al., and also 
Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, p. 311, to connect 
pave. with apyai, ‘ they learn to be idle,’ 
especially as this can be supported by 
Plato, Euthyd. p. 276 B, ot duaxes Bpa 
copol pavddvovow [Bekker, however, 
omits copot], and in part by Dio Chrys. 
p- 283 (ed. Reisk.), €udvdave rAwdtoos 
Thy Tov matpos Texvhv,— both of which 
examples are appositely cited by Winer, 
l.c. Ifit be urged (De Wette, Wiesing.) 
that running about would be more natu- 
rally the consequence of idleness than 
vice versd, it may be said that mepiepx. 
may possibly refer to some portion of 
their official duties, in the performance 
of which, instead of rather acquiring 
spiritual experiences, they only contract 
idle and gossiping habits. Tas oixtas 
might seem to confirm this, ‘ the houses 
of them they have to visit;’ but compare 
2 Tim. iii. 6, where (as here) the article 
appears generic, or at most, ‘the houses 
of such as receive them ;’ comp. Winer, 
Gr.§ 17.1, p. 116, note (ed. 5). 

meprepxdmevart| ‘going round to;” 
the participle is certainly used with ref- 
erence to an idle, wandering, way of go- 
ing about, in Acts xix. 13; this mean- 
ing, however, is derived from the con- 
text, which does not oblige us necessarily 
to retain the same meaning here. Other 
examples of accusatives after the ep? 
in the comp. verb are found in the N. T., 
e.g. Mark vi. 6, Acts ix. 3, al. ; compare 
also Matth. Gr. § 426, Bernhardy, Synt. 

12 


90 


\ 


PELIMOTeY. 


Crar. V. 14. 


! 
Tas oiKias, ov pdvoyv Sé apyal, GNA Kat pdvapor Kal Teplepyot, 


Aarodoa TA pn SéovTa. 


v. 30 ad fin., p. 260. arAAG kal 
paAvapo.r kal weplepyot| ‘but also 
tatilers amd busybodies ;’ émavdpSwois of 
preceding epithet; beside being merely 
idle, they also contract and display a 
‘mala sedulitas’ in both words and ac- 
tions. Advapos, an ar. Aeydu. in N. T. 
(but see paAvapety, 3 John 10), as its deri- 
vation [IIAY-, fluere, Pott, Etymol. Forsch. 
Vol. 1. 212] obviously suggests, points 
to a babbling, profluent way of talking. 
Tlepiepyos (see Acts xix. 19) marks a 
meddling habit, a perverted activity that 
will not content itself with minding its 
own concerns, but must busy itself about 
those of others; compare 2 Thess. iii. 
11, undév épyaCdwevous GAAG meprepyatoue- 
vous, |Demosth.] Philipp. 1v. 150, é& av 
epyacn Ka) meprepydcn. 
Aadovaat x.7.A.| ‘speaking things 
which they ought not,’ carrying things from 
one house to another: mepiodevovcm yap 
Tus oiKlas ovdey GAN 2 Ta TavTHS Mmpds 
éexelynv pépovot, Theophyl. On ra wh 
déovra, comp. notes on Tit. i. 11. 

14. BovrAouat] ‘Idesire;’ not 
merely ‘I hold it advisable,’ De Wette, 
‘velim,’ Beza, comp. notes on ii. 8. 
The comparison of this verse with verse 
11 is instructive ; there the widows them- 
selves SéAovow yauev; their SeAquara 
lead them to it (Eph. ii. 3); their will is 
to marry; here St. Paul desires (delibe- 
rato et propenso animo,’ Tittm.) that — 
not being on the list —they would do so. 
Chrys. makes no distinction, éred) abrat 
BovrAovta BovAoua Kayo k.T.A- As a 

general rule, the distinction of Tittmann, 
Synon. 1. p. 124,—‘Séaev nihil aliud 
est quam simpliciter velle, neque in se 
‘habet notionem voluntatis propensx ad 
aliquam rem, sed BotAeodo: denotat ip- 
sam animi propensionem,’— will be found 
satisfactory, but in the application of it 
to individual cases proper caution must 


14 t io Us lal 
Aovropan odv vewTépas yapuely, TeKVO- 


be used. It ought to be remarked that 
S€Aw is by very far more frequently used 
by St. Paul than fova., the latter occurs 
only 1 Cor. xii. 11, 2 Cor. i. 15, and 17 
(ZLachm.) Phil. i. 12, 1 Tim. ii. 8, vi. 9, Tit. 
iii. 8, Philem. 13; once only 1 Cor. l. c.in 
ref. to God (the Holy Ghost). Bova. is 
most used by St. Luke in the Acts, where 
it occurs about fourteen times, and conse- 
quently, if we except quotations, rather 
more frequently than déAw. 

ovy has here its proper collective force 
(Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11 p. 717), ‘in con- 
sequence of these things being so, I de- 
sire,’ etc. ; ‘igitur,’ Beza,— not an inju- 
dicious change for ‘ ergo,’ Vulg., as there 
is here no ‘ gravior argumentatio ;’ see 
Hand, Tursell, Vol. 111. p. 187. 
vewTépas| ‘younger widows,’ not mere- 
ly ‘younger women,’ as Auth. Ver.; 
still less ‘ Jungfrauen,’ as Bauer. The 
context seems to confine our attention 
simply to widows. The true aspect of 
this precept is, as Wiesinger observes, 
defined by ody here, and yap ver. 15; the 
precept involves its own restrictions. 
The apostle desires the younger widows 
to marry rather than attempt a course of 
duties which they might swerve from or 
degrade ; compare Chrysost. 

Texvoy. oitkod.| ‘to bear children, to 
rule the house ;’ regular infin. after verbs 
denoting ‘a motion of the will,’ Jelf, 
Gr. § 664; compare Winer, Gr. § 44. 
3, p. 287. Both words are a. Aeydu. in 
the N. T.; the substantive rexvoyovta, 
however, occurs ch. ii. 15, and olxodec- 
mérns several times in the first three gos- 
pels. Both the latter substantive and its 
verb belong to later Greek, oixias deamd- 
Tys AeKTéov, odx. dS “AAekts, olKodeaTd- 
tns, Phrynicus ; so Pollux, Onom. x. 21: 
further examples are cited by Lobeck, on 
Phryn. p. 373. It is an untenable posi- 
tion that texvorpod. is included in texvo- 


Cuap. V. 15, 16. 


DOULA. 


Of 


a ’ 5 tal y , bd \ 8 86 Aves , 
yovely, oikodectroreiv, pndeuiav adopynv Sidovar TH avTiKermeven 
Aodopias yapw 15 Hdn yap twes éEeTpaTncav bricw Tod Ya- 


Tava. 


16 By] \ x \ ” / b] / b] a 
€l TLS [ wuoros 7| TOT?) eX EL XNPAS; ETTAPKELT@ auTals, 


‘\ \ / ¢ rd / vA tal ” / > /, 
Kal un Bapeias@ n exkdnola, Wa Tals dvTwSs yHpals éeTAapKéy. 


yov. (Moller) ; ifincluded in any word, 
it would far more naturally be so in o- 
«xodeomotew (Leo), which points to the 
woman’s sphere of domestic duties. 

TG avtixetméeva| ‘to the adversary ;’ 
not ‘ the devil,’ Chrys., for though this 
application derives some plausibility from 
Tod Sat. ver. 15, yet the Aodop. xdpw 
seems far more naturally to suggest a 
reference to human opponents,— the ad- 
versaries of Christianity (Phil. i. 28, Tit. 
ii. 8) among the Jews or the Gentiles ; 
so Hammond, De. W., Wiesinger. On 
this word, and the possibly stronger évr- 
Tacodmevor (‘qui in adversa acie stantes 
oppugnant’), see Tittm. Synon. 11. p. 
I. 
‘ for reviling,’ lit. ‘to further, promote, 
reviling ;’ prepositional clause, append- 
ed to apopuny d:56var to specify the man- 
ner in which, and purpose for which, the 
occasion would be used ; on the meaning 
of xapu compare notes on Gul. iii. 19, 
and Donalds. Cratyl. § 278. The ‘ re- 
proach’ must be understood as directed 
not merely against the widows, but 
against Christianity generally ; compare 
Tit. ii. 5. 

15. H8n yap tives] ‘ For already 
some,’ sc. widows; amb melpas 7 vomode- 
cia yeyevnrat, Theod. Matthies here 
gives the pronoun a more extended ref- 
erence, but without sufficient reason ; 
yap clearly confirms the command in the 
preceding verse, and thus naturally refers 
us to the special cases of those mention- 
ed in it. The inversion égerparn- 
ody tives now adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) 
with AFG; al., appears of less critical 
authority than the reading in the text. 
eEetpamnaay| ‘(have) turned them- 
selves out of the way,’ sc. of chastity, pro- 
priety, and discretion: comp. 2 Tim. iv. 


Aotdopias xapey| 


4. Itis unnecessary to give this aberra- 
tion a wider or more general reference,— 
‘from the faith’ (Mosh.), ‘from right 
teaching ’ (Heydenr.). The younger 
widows, to whom the apostle alludes, 
had swerved from the path of purity and 
chastity, which leads to Christ, and fol- 
lowed that of sensuality, which leads to 
Satan: Christ was the true spouse, Satan 
the seducer. 

UG. Netiqesilanea.aos Mle TAs | ey 
any [believing man or| believing woman 
This 
might fairly seem a concluding reitera- 
tion of the precept in ver. 4 and ver. 8, 
or a species of supplementary command 
based on the same principles (compare 
Mosh.). The connection, however, and 
difference of terms, émapkeitw not mpo- 
vocitw, suggest a different application of 
the precept. In verses 4, 8, the duties 
of children or grandchildren to the elder 
widow are defined : here the reference is 
rather to the younger widows. How were 
such to be supported ? If they married, 
the question was at once answered; if 
they remained unmarried, let their rela- 
tives, fathers or mothers, uncles or aunts, 
brothers or sisters, support them, and not 
obtrude them on the ynpikby Tdéyua, ver. 
9, when they might be unfit for the du- 
ties of the office, and bring scandal on 
the church by their defection. 
Bapetodw] ‘be burdened, Luke xxi. 
34, 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 4; later and less cor- 
rect form for Baptve. The assertion of 
Thom. M. s. v. rAyv ém tod tmapakepe- 
vou ov BeBdpuyKa A€éyovow GAAG BeBa- 
pnka, is somewhat doubtful; BeSapnos 
(intrans.) is used by Homer, and BeBapy- 
pévos certainly appears in Plato, Symp. 
p- 203 B, as well as in Aristides (cited 
by Thom. M.), but the latter passage is 


have widows, let such relieve them.’ 


92 lL TIMOTHY Cuap. V..17. 


Let the elders who rule 
well receive double honor ; 


a > / / e nr 
be thou guarded in receiv- TLLNS akwovaSwoav' pahtaTa Ol KOTTLUYTES ev 
ing accusations against them. Rebuke sinners. 


" Oi Karas TpoecoTMtes mpeaBuTepor SuTAHs 


16. mortbs } moth] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with DKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg. 
(Tol., Harl.?), Syr. (both), Ar., Slav.; Chrys. (distinctly), Theodoret, Dam., al. 
(Griesb., De W., Wiesing.), and possibly rightly. The shorter reading e¥ tes moth, 
supported by ACFG; 17.47; Vulg. (Amit., Harl.'), Copt., Arm., and adopted by 
Lachm., deserves much consideration, but can be accounted for more easily than 
the longer reading. It must now however be added that the newly-discovered & is 
said to support the shorter reading ; see Tischendorf, Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20. If 
this be correct, and the MS. prove to be of the value and antiquity at present as- 
cribed to it, the preponderance will probably be rightly deemed in favor of the 


reading of Lachmann. 


an imitation of Homer, and the former 
has a very poetical cast; the use of Be- 
Bdpnuct as the regular Attic perfect (Hu- 
ther), cannot therefore be completely sub- 
stantiated: comp. Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, 
8._V. Bapivw. 

17. of kaA@s Tpoecta@tes| ‘who 
rule, preside (surely not ‘ have presided,’ 
Alf.), well;’ not in antithesis to those 
‘who preside ill,’ but in contra-distine- 
tion to other presbyters, to the presbyter 
as such (Wiesing.).. The meaning of 
KaA@s TpoeoTavat is approximately given 
by Chrys. as undevds peldeoSat rijs éxel- 
vev Kndeuovias évexey ; this, however, too 
much obscures the idea of rule and direc- 
tive functions (Bloomf.) implied in the 
participle rpoeor. ; comp. ch. ili. 4. 
SimAHsS TimHs] ‘double honor, v. e. re- 
muneration ;’ double, not in comparison 
with that of widows or deacons (Chrys. 
1, comp. Thorndike, Relig. Assembl, 1v. 
22), nor even of of uy KdA. mpoear. (com- 
pare of Guaptdvoytes, ver. 20) but, with a 
less definite numerical reference,— d:r- 
Ajjs (not dimAactas Tiywjs, as in Plato, 
Legg. v. p. 730 D), @. €. TOAATS Tiuis, 
Chrys. 2, mAciovos tiujjs, Theodoret. 
Tiywh again, as tiua, verse 3, includes, 
though it does not precisely express, ‘ sal- 
ary, remuneration,’ and is well para- 
phrased by Chrysostom as S<pamela [ral] 


h TeV avayKaiwy xopryia, comp. Clem. 
Rom. 1.1. Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 361) 
cites several instances of a similar use of 
Tih, but in all, it will be observed, the 
regular meaning of the word is distinctly 
apparent: compare Wakef, Sylv. Crit. 
Vol. Iv. p. 199. 

&ELotvcSwaoar| ‘be counted worthy,’ 
Auth. Ver., ‘digni habeantur,’ Vulg., 
compare Syr., not merely ‘ be rewarded,’ 
Hammond. They were &£to: SeAjjs ti 
“is, and were to be accounted as such. 
oi komi@vres x. T. A.| ‘they who labor 
in word and doctrine ;’ no hendyadys, 
scil. eis Thy bidaxhv Tod Adyou (Coray, 
al.), but with full inclusiveness,—‘ in the 
general form of oral discourse (whether 
monitory, hortatory, or prophetic), and 
the more special form of teaching ;’ see 
Thorndike, Prim. Gov. 1x. 3, Vol. 1. p. 
42 (A.-C. Libr.). Mosheim (de Reb. 
ante Const., p. 126 sq.) throws a stress 
upon Komiavres, urging that the verb does 
not imply merely ‘ Christianos erudire, 
sed populos vere religionis nescios ejus 
cognitione imbuere,’ p. 127. We should 
then have two, if not three classes (com- 
pare 1 Thess. v. 12),—the preachers 
abroad, and rulers and preachers at 
home, the former of which might be 
thought worthy of more pay: this is in- 
genious, but it affixes a peculiar theolog-_ 


 . 


’ Car. V. 18 


Adyw Kat SSacKkaria. 1% Néyer 


ical meaning te xomidw which cannot be 
fully substantiated ; compare ch. iy. 10, 
1 Cor. iv. 12, al. The concluding words, 
év Adyw Kat ddacx., certainly seem to 
imply tvo kinds of ruling presbyters, 
those who preached and taught, and 
those who did not; and though it bas 
been plausibly urged that the differentia 
lies in xomiaytes, and that the apostle 
does not so much distinguish between 
the functions as the execution of them 
(see esp. Thorndike, Prim. Gov. 1x. 7), 
it yet seems more natural to suppose the 
existence in the large community at Eph- 
esus of a clerical college of rpoeot@tes 
apeaBurepa (Thorndike, 7b. 111. 2), some 
of whom might have the xdpicua of 
teaching more eminently than others; 
see notes on ph. iv. 11, and Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 149 sq. (Bohn). 

18. Adyet yap «.7.Aa.] The first 
quotation is taken from Deuteron. xxv. 
4, and is quoted with a similar applica- 
tion in 1 Cor. ix. 9. The law in ques- 
tion, of which the purport and intention 
was kindness and consideration for ani- 
mals (see Philo, de Human. § 19, Vol. 11. 
p. 400, ed. Mang., Joseph. Antiq. Iv. 8. 
21), is applied with a kind of ‘argu- 
mentum a minori’ to the laborers in 
God’s service. The precept can hardly 
be said to be generalized or expanded 
(see Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 834 
sq.), so much as reapplied and invested 
with a typical meaning. And this typi- 
eal or allegorical interpretation is neither 
arbitrary nor of mere Rabbinical origin, 
but is to be referred to the inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit under which the apostle 
gives the literal meaning of the words 
their fuller and deeper application ; com- 
pare notes on Gal. iv. 24. 

Body aAo0@vtTal ‘an ox while treading 
out the corn ;’ not‘ the ox that treadeth,’ 
ete., Auth. Ver.,— an inexact translation 


of the anarthrous participle; compare 


1 TIMOTHY. 93 


yap » ypadi. Body adoavta od 


Donalds. Gramm. § 492. Threshing by 
means of oxen was (and is) performed in 
two ways; either the oxen were driven 
over the circularly arranged heaps, and 
made to tread them out with the hoof 
(Hozea x. 11, compare Micah iv. 13), or 
they were attached to a heavy threshing- 
wain Heb. asm S517, Isaiah xxviii. 
Din axis Voyeror DPI, Judges viii. 7, 
see Bertheau in loc.) which they drew 
over them, see esp. Winer, RWB. Art. 
‘Dreschen,’ Bochart, Hieroz. Vol. 1. p. 
310, and the illustrations in Thomson, 
Land and the Book, Vol. 11. p. 314. 
There is some little doubt about the or- 
der; Lachmann reads ov qu, B. ad. with 
AC; sevenmss.; Vulg., Syr. [¢ncorrectly 
claimed by Tisch.], Copt., Arm.; Chrys., 
al. As this might have been a correc- 
tion from 1 Cor. /. c., and as the weight 
of MS. authority (8 being also included) 
is on the other side, it seems best to re- 
tain the order of the text. 

ob pipadaers| ‘thou shalt not muzzle ;’ 
imperatival future, on the various usages 
of which see notes on Gal. vy. 14, and 
Thiersch, de Pentat. 111. § 11, p. 157. 
The animals that labored were not to be 
prevented from enjoying the fruits of 
their labors (Joseph. Antig. Iv. 8. 21), 
as was the custom among the heathens 
in the case of their cattle (comp. Bochart, 
Hieroz. Vol. 1. 401), and even (by means 
of a mavoixdmrn, Poll. Onom. v1. 20.), 
in the case of their slaves; see Rost u. 
Palm, Ler. s. vy. ravoux. Vol. 11. p. 774. 
kal~Aétos «.7.A.| Proverbial declara- 
tion (Stier, Red. Jes. Vol. 1. p. 400) made 
use of by our Lord (Luke x. 7, compare 
Matth. x. 10), and here repeated by St. 
Paul to enhance the force of, and explain 
the application of, the preceding quota- 
tion. There is nothing in the connection 
to justify the assertion that this is a cita- 
tion from the N. T. (Theodoret), and 
thus necessarily to be connected with 


“94 


IGTiMOTHY. 


Cuap. V. 19,20. 


pyudsess, Kat” A€vos 0.€pyatns Tod pucSod avtov. ' Kara mpec- 
Butépov Kkatyyoplav pi Twapacdéxov, éxTos et pi) emt Svo 7) TpLov 
paptupav. °° Tovs auaptavovtas éveTuov ravtav édreyye, iva kab 


ol Aoutrol PoBov Exwow. 


Aéye: } ypabn, as is contended by Baur 

and others who deny the genuineness of 
this Epistle ; ypapy, it need scarcely be 
said, being always applied by St. Paul 
to the Old Testament ; comp. Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 303, and see notes on 2 Tim. 
ii. 16. Though a similar mode of cita- 

- tion is found elsewhere in the case of two 
actual passages of scripture (Mark vii. 
10, Acts i. 20, compare Heb. i. 10), yet 
we must remember that this is not a case 
of two parallel citations, but that the 
second is only explanatory of the first ; 

‘the comparison, therefore, fails. Even 
De W. admits that Baur has only proba- 
bility in his favor. 

19. kata mpeoButépou| ‘Aguinst 
an elder, Vulg., Goth. ; not ‘an elderly 
man,’ Chrys., Theophyl., Gacum. The 
context is clearly only about presbyters. 

“KaTN yoplayv| ‘acharge, an accusation ;’ 
ovk eime 5€, wh Katakpivys, GAAd, mnde 
mapadeén SAws, Theophyl. It has been 
asked (De W.) whether Timothy is not 
to observe the judicial rule here alluded 

“to (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 5, comp. Matth. 
xviii. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 1) in all cases as 
merely in the case of an elder. The an- 
swer is, that Timothy was not a judge in 
the sense in which the command contem- 
plated the exercise of that office. He 
might have been justified in receiving an 
accusation at the mouth of only one wit- 
ness ; to prevent, however, the scandals 
that would thus frequently occur in the 
church, the apostle specifically directs 
that an accusation against an elder is 
only to be received when the evidence is 
most /egally clear and satisfactory. 
éxtos ei wh] ‘except it be,’ 1 Cor. xiv. 
5. xv. 2; a pleonastic negation, really 
compounded of two exceptive formule ; 
compare Thom. M. s. v. xwpls, and see 


the examples cited by Wetst. on 1 Cor. 
l. c., and by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 459. 

ém) &t0 «.7.A.| ‘on the authority of 
[fon the mouth of,’ Syr.] two or three 
witnesses ;’ compare Xenoph. Hell. v1. 
5. 41, é@ dAlywy waptipwy, ‘ paucis adhi- 
bitis testibus ;’ Winer, Gr. § 47. g, p- 
335. Huther finds a difficulty in this 
meaning of em with the gen. Surely 
nothing can be more simple. As em 
with a gen. properly denotes superposi- 
tion (see Donaldson. Cratyl. § 178), the 
karnyopta is represented as resting upon 
the witnesses, depending on them to sub- 
stantiate it; compare Hammond. The 
closely allied use, emi dicacta@y, dicaorn- 
piov, etc., in which the presence of the 
parties (coram) is more brought into 
prominence (1 Cor. vi. 1, 2 Cor. vii. 14), 
is correctly referred by Kiihner (Jelf, Gr. 
§ 633) to the same primary meaning. 
The idea of ‘connection or accompani- 
ment,’ which Peile (following Matth. Gr. 
§ 584. 7) here finds in emi, is not suffi- 
ciently exact: see further examples in 
Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. éwt, Vol. 1. p. 
1034. 

20. rovs awaprdvovtas) ‘them that 
sin, sinners ;’ apparently not the offend- 
ing presbyters (Huth., Alf.), as the ex- 
pression is far too comprehensive to be 
so limited, but sinners generally, persis- 
tentes in peccato’ (Priczeus ap. Pol. 
Syn.),— whether. Presbyters or others. 
This very constant use of the article with 
the pres. part. as a kind of equivalent for 
the substantive is noticed in Winer, Gr. 
§ 45. 7, p. 316; see also notes on Gal. i. 
23. évadmiov TavTwr 
must obviously be joined with éAcyxe, 
not with auapr. (Cajet.). This text is 
perfectly reconcilable with our Lord’s in- 
struction (Matth. xviii. 15), not because 


N 
‘Cuap. V. 21. 


«I solemnly charge thee be 
not partial or precipitate : 
some men’s sins are sooner, gz) 
some later, in being found 

‘out; so their good works. 


‘Christus agit de peccato occulto, Paulus 
de publico’ (Justiniani), but because, 
first, Timothy is here invested with spe- 
cial ecclesiastical authority (compare 
Thorndike, Prim. Gov. ch. x111.), and 
secondly, because the present participle 
(contr. éav auapt. Matth. /. c.) directs 
‘the thought towards the habitually sinful 
character of the offender (émmévovtas 7 
auapt. Theoph.), and his need of an open 
rebuke ; see notes on Eph. iv. 28. 

21. Stapaptipouatl ‘TL solemnly 
charge thee,’ ‘ obtestor,’ Beza,—or, with 
full accuracy, ‘obtestando Deum (Dei 
mentione interposita) graviter ac serio 
hortor,’ Winer, de Verb. c. Prepp. v. p. 
20; similarly used in adjurations, 2 
Tim. ii. 14,-iv. 1., In 1 Thess. iv. 6, the 
only other passage in which it occurs in 
St. Paul’s Epp. [Heb. ii. 6], it has more 
the sense of ‘assure, solemnly testify :’ 
‘compare Acts xx. 21, 23, 24. In this 
verb (frequently used by St. Luke), the 
preposition appears primarily to mark 
the presence or interposition of some 
form of witness, ‘ intercessionis ( Vermitte- 
lung) ad quam omnis testimonii provin- 
cia redit, notionem,’ Winer, /.c. p. 21. 
On verbs compounded with dd, see the 
remarks of Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 223. 
Tod @eod k.7.A.] ‘ God and Christ 
Jesus.’ With the present reading this 
text cannot possibly be classed under 
Granville Sharpe’s rule (Green, Gr. p. 
216), and even with the reading of the 
Rec. (kup. 1. X., with D°KL; mss.; Syr., 
Goth., al.; Chrys., al.), the reference of 
the two substantives to one person is in 
the highest degree doubtful and preca- 
rious; the Greek Ff. are here for the 
“most part either silent, or adopt the usual 
translation ; see notes on Hph. v. 5, Mid- 
dleton, Art. p. 389 (ed. Rose), Stier on 
Eph. Vol. 1. p. 250. 


Yo LMwOTayY 


95 


, _ * A 
1 Avapwaptupopar évwitriov Tod Ocod Kat Xpic- 
"Incod Kai tov éxreKTOv ayyédov, va TadTa 
/ 2\ t fal 
puraéns Yopis Tpokpiwatos, wndev ToLwv KATA 


eKAEKTOY ayyEeArAwy] ‘elect angels ;’ 
‘he adds ‘ the elect angels’ becatise they 
in the future judgment shall be present 
as witnesses with their Lord,’ Bp. Bull: 
comp. Jos. Bell. 11. 16. 4 sub fin. (cited 
by Otto and Krebs), papripoua & eyo 
Mev buoy Th Gyta, Kal TOUS iepods ayyéAous, 
There is some little difficulty 
in deciding on the meaning of the term 
éxAextot. It surely cannot be a mere 
‘epitheton ornans’ (Huther; compare 
Calv., Wiesing.), nor does it seem prob- 
able that it refers to those of a higher, as 
opposed to those of a lower, rank (Ca- 
thar. ap. Est.; comp. Tobit xii. 15), as . 
all such distinctions are at best uncertain 
and precarious ; compare notes on Col. 
i. 17. With such passages as 2 Peter in. 
4, Jude 6, before us, it seems impossible 
to doubt that the ‘elect angels ’ are those 
who kept their first estate (Chrys., The- 
oph., Gicum.), and who shall form part 
of that countless host (Jude 14, Dan. vii. 
10) that shall attend the Lord’s second 
advent; so Stuart, Angeloloyy, 1v. 2 (in 
Biblioth. Sacra, 1843, p. 103); compare 
also Twesten, Angelol. § 3 (translated in 
Bibl. Sacr. for 1844, p. 782). On the 
existence and ministry of these Blessed 
Spirits see the powerful and admirable 
sermons of Bp. Bull, Engl. Works, p. 
194 sq. 
things, which have just been said (ver. 
19,-20) about caution in receiving accu- 
sations, and necessary exercise of disci- 
pline when sin is patent; so Theodoret 
(expressly) and the other Greek exposi- 
tors. De W. and Wiesing. refer ravta 
only to ver. 20, but would not rov7o0 have 
thus been more natural? At any rate it 
seems clearly unsatisfactory to extend 
the reference to ver. 17 sq. (Huth. ? al.) : 
instruction about the exercise of disci- 
pline might suitably be connected with 


Tov @ecov. 


tabra] ‘these 


96 


, 
TPOCKALOLW. 


the weighty adjuration in ver. 21, but 
scarcely mere semi-fiscal arrangements. 
Xwpls mpoxpipatos] ‘without pre- 
judice, prejudging,’ (‘ fairdémein,’ Goth- 
ic); ‘judicium esse debet non prejudi- 
cium, Beng. In the participial clause 
that follows the contrary aberration from 
justice is forbidden, scil. ‘inclinatio per 
favorem,’ Kata mpordSeiay mpookAwopuevos 
T® €vi pépet, Theophyl. The reading 
mpdakanow (Lachm. with ADL.; al. 50; 
Copt.? Chrys. ?) though deserving some 
consideration on the principle, ‘ proclivi 
lectioni praestat ardua,’ can scarcely be 
forced into yielding any natural sense. 
Both zpoxp. and mpdcka. are Gm. Aeydu. 
in the N. T.: the latter occurs also in 
Clem. Rom. 1. 47, 50; (compare Polyb. 
Hist. v. 51. 8, v1. 10. 10), and is illus- 
trated by Krebs, Obs. p. 356 sq. 

On the alleged distinction between xw- 
pis and &vev see notes on Eph. ii. 12. 

22. xeTpas Taxéws k.7.A.] ‘lay 
hands hastily on no man.’ Indisputably 
the most ancient interpretation of these 
words is ‘ the imposition of hands in ordi- 
nation,’ wept xetporoviav, Chrys. ; so The- 
od., Theophyl., Gicum., and of modern 
expositors Alford and Wordsworth, but 
without success in explaining the con- 
text. The preceding warnings, however, 
and still more the decided language of 
the following clause (comp. auaptdvoyvras 
ver. 20) appear to point so very clearly 
to some disciplinary functions, that it 
seems best with Hammond (so also De 
Wette, Wiesing.) to refer these words to 
the xeipodecia on the absolution of peni- 
tents, and their re-admission to church- 
fellowship; so apparently Taylor, Dis- 
suasive, Part. 11. 1. 11, though otherwise 
in Lpiscopacy, § 14. The prevalency in 
the apostolic age of the custom of impo- 
sition of hands generally, and the dis- 
tinct evidence of this specific application 
.of the custom in very early times (Euse- 


1 TIMOTHY 


_Cuar. V.-22. 


22 Xeipas taxyéws pndevi eretTider, pnoe Kowever 


bius, Hist. v11. 2, calls it a madady #803 
see Concil. Nic. Can. 8), seem to ren- 
der such an assumption in the present 
case by no means arbitrary or indem- 
onstrable: see especially Hammond in 
loc. and compare Suicer, Thesaur. Vot 
11. p. 1516, Bingham, Antig. xviii. 2.1. 
Bnde kotvdvet k. T.A.] ‘nor yet share 
in the sins of others,’ 1. e. undév cor Kar 
Tas Gp. GAAoTp. Kowwov éoTw, Winer, Gr. 
§ 30. 8, p. 180; ‘do not share with them 
their sins, by restoring them to church- 
fellowship on a doubtful or imperfect re- 
pentance.’ The Auth. Vers. ‘be par- 
taker of’ ‘mache dich theilhaftig,’ De 
Wette) is scarcely sufficiently exact, as 
this would rather imply a gen. Koww- 
veiv is commonly used in the N. T. with 
a ‘dativus rei’ (see notes on Gal. vi. 6), 
and in this construction seems to involve 
more the idea of community than of sim- 
ple participation ; see Winer, /. c., Poppo 
on Thucyd. 11. 16, Vol. 111. 2, p. 77, and 
comp. notes on Eph. v.11. On the con- 
tinued negation wy—pndé, see notes on 
Eph. iv. 27, and the treatise of Franke, 
de Part. Neg. 11. 2,p.6. The remark of 
De Wette on this clause seems reasona- 
ble, that if the reference were to ordina- 
tion, this sequence to the command would 
imply a greater corruption in the Church 
than is at all credible. To admit that 
Gpaptias points to auaptdvorvras, and yet 
to conceive that presbyters are referred 
to in the latter expression and candidates 
for ordination in the former (Alford, 
Wordsw.) is a narrow and somewhat 
cheerless view of a church which, with 
all its faults, could not bear ‘ them which 
were evil’ and knew how to reject false 
apostles (Rev. ii. 2). 

ceautdy «.7.A.| ‘Keep thyself (em- 
phatic) pure:’ ‘purum,’ Beza, not ‘ cas- 
tum,’ Vulg., Clarom. The position of 
the reflexive pronoun and the sort of 
antithesis in which it stands to aAAotp. 


Cuap. V. 23, 24. 


dpaptias adXotpiats. 


PeTiMorne Y. 


\ / 
GEAVTOY WyVoV THpEL. 


97 


3 unKéte vdpoTro- 


b] \ ” ? f lal Py A \ fe , \ \ td 
TEL, AAAA OW OALYO Kp 01a TOY GTOMAYOV TOV KaL TAS TrUKVAS 


cov aoSevelas. * Twov avSporov ai duaptiar rpddnrol eiow 


seem to imply, ‘ while thou hast to act 
as judge upon other men, be morally 
pure thyself.’ ‘Ayvds (&(w), as its termi- 
nation suggests (‘object conceived under 
certain relations,’ Donalds. Crutyl. § 255), 
implies properly an outward, and thence 
an inward, purity; ‘ ayvbv est in quo 
nihil est impuri,’ Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 
22; compare ayv}) avacrpoph, 1 Pet. iii. 
2, copia ayy, James iii. 17. The deriv- 
ative sense of ‘ castitas’ (‘purttas a ve- 
nere, ayvbs youav, Eur, Phan. 953) 
comes easily and intelligibly from the 
primary meaning; compare 2 Corinth. 
xi. 2, Titus ii. 5, and Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol..1. p. 170, except that 
he adopts this derivative meaning far too 
generally. On the distinction between 
it aud G@yios (‘in ayos cogitatur potissi- 
mum verecundia que ayv@ rei vel per- 
sonz debetur’), compare Tittmann, loc. 
cit. 

23. unnkéte bipom.] ‘be no longer a 
water-drinker.’ There is no necessity to 
supply ‘only’ (Conyb., Hows., Coray, 
al.) ; d3poror. not being exactly identi- 
cal with téwp mivew, but pointing more 
to the regular habit ; comp. Artemidorus 
1. 68 (Wetst.), mivew bSwp Wuxpov aya- 
Sby macr Sepudy 5& Hdwp vdcous  ampa- 
tlas onuatver Tav Eos exovtwy bdpoTo- 
tev x. T. A., and see Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, 
p- 442, and the numerous examples cited 
by Wetstein in loc. The collocation of 
this precept is certainly somewhat singu- 
lar, and has given rise to many different 
explanations. The most natural view is 
that it was suggested by the previous ex- 
hortation, to which it acts as a kind of 
limitation ; ‘keep thyself pure, but do 
not on that account think it necessary 
to maintain an Gowoy dyveray (Plutarch, 
de Iside et Osir. § 6), and ascetical absti- 
nences.’ To suppose that the apostle 


puts it down here just as it came into his 
mind, fearing he might otherwise forget 
it (Coray in loc.), seems very unsatisfac- 
tory ; still more so to regard it as a hint 
to Timothy to raise his bodily condition 
above maladies, which, it is assumed, 
interfered with an efficient discharge of 
his duties (Alford). That the apostle’s 
‘genuine child in the faith’ (ch. i. 2) was 
feeble in body is certain from this verse ; 
that this feebleness affected his character 
is, to say the very least, a most question- 
able hypothesis. It may be remarked, 
in conclusion, that some ascetic sects, 
e.g. the Essenes, were particularly dis- 
tinguished for their avoidance of wine, 
especially on their weekly festival ; wordy 
Bdwp vauatiatoy avtois éotw, Philo, de 
Vit. Cont. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 477, see § 9, p. 
483, and compare Luke i. 15, Rom. xiv. 
21. 
x bv cov] ‘on account of thy stomach.’ 
Wetstein and Kypke very appropri- 
ately cite Libanius, Hpist. 1578, rémtwxe 
kat jpiv 6 orduaxos tails cuvexéow bdpo- 


b1a Tov OTOMa- 


mogiats. 

24. TivGv avSpomwv k.7.A.J 
The connection is not perfectly perspicu- 
ous. Heinsius (Lzercitut. p. 491), not 
without some plausibility, includes ver. 
23 with the last clause of ver. 22 ina 
parenthesis. This seems scarcely neces- 
sary: oeavtéy kK. T. A. is a supplemen- 
tary command in reference to what pre- 
cedes ; ver. 23 is a kind of limitation of 
it, suggested by some remembrance to 
Timothy’s habits. The apostle then re- 
verts to unde Kow. auapr. with a senti- 
ment somewhat of this nature. ‘ There 
are two kinds of sins, the one crying and 
open which lead the way, the other silent 
which /ol/ow the perpetrator to judgment , 
so also there are open and hidden (74 
tAAws €xovta) good works ; sins, how- 


13 


98 


1TIMOTEY. 


Cuap. V. 25. 


s 3 Ul \ be AG, 'S ON S A F 25 - Tp 
Trpoayovo al €ls KplLoly, TLOW O€ KAL ETTAKOAOUSOVOLW @OAVTWS 


cal Ta épya Ta KAaNA TPddnra, Kal TA AAAS ExovTA KpUPivaL ov 


OvvapTat. 


ever, and good works alike shall ulti- 
mately be brought to light and to judg- 
ment.’ The two verses thus seem mainly 
added to assist Timothy in his diagnosis 
of character; ver. 24 appears to caution 
him against being too hasty in absolving 
others ; ver. 25 against being too precip- 
itate in his censures ; so Huther. 
mpddnaor| ‘openly manifest :’ the pre- 
position does not appear to have so much 
a mere temporal as an intensive reference ; 
see Heb. vii. 14, where Theod. remarks, 
7) mpodndrov ws avavTippnTov TEedelKeE; 
compare also mpoypapw Gal. iii. 1, and 
notes in loc. So similarly Syr. and Vul- 
gate, both of which suppress any tempo- 
ral reference in the preposition. Estius 
compares ‘ propalam,’— a form in which 
Hand similarly gives to ‘pro’ only an 
amplifying and intensive force, ‘ut pa- 
lam propositam rem plane conspiciamus,’ 
Tursellinus, Vol. 1v. p. 598. 
mpodyovcat K.7.A.] ‘going before, 
leading the way, to judgment,’ as heralds 
and apparitgrs (‘quasi ante-ambulones,’ 
Beza) proclaiming before the sinner the 
whole history of his guilt. The ‘ judg- 
ment’ to which they lead the way is cer- 
tainly not any ecclesiastical kptors,— for 
does any such «plots really bring all sins 
and good deeds thus to light ?— but 
either ‘judgment’ in its general sense 
with reference to men (Huth.), or, per- 
haps with ultimate reference to ‘ the final 
judgment’ (comp. Chrys.) ; they go be- 
fore the sinner to the judgment seat of 
Christ; see Manning, Sermon 5, Vol. 
111. p. 72, in the opening of which this 
text is forcibly illustrated. To limit the 
xptots to the case of candidates for ordi- 
nation (Alf, Wordsw.) is to give a verse 
almost obviously and studiedly general, 
a very narrow and special interpretation. 
So much-was this felt by Basil that we 


are told by Theophylact (on ver. 24) he 
conceived the present portion to have no 
connection with the wep) taév xetporomay 
Adyov, but to form a separate repaAaiov : 
compare Cramer, Caten. Vol. v1. p. 44, 
where this and the following verses form 
an independent section. 

kal émakorovaodcty] ‘they rather 
follow after, sc. eis xpiow; not merely 
indefinitely, ‘ they follow after, and so in 
their shorter or longer course become 
discovered,’ De Wette,— an explanation 
which completely destroys image and 
apposition— but, ‘ the sins crying for ven- 
geance follow the sinner to the tribunals, 
whether of his fellow-inen, or, more in- 
clusively, of his all-judging Lord; od yap 
ovykatadovvTat TG Biw, GAN émaKkodou- 
Sodow, Theoph. ; compare Manning, /. ec. 
On émaxoA. see notes on ver. 11: the 
antithesis a podyovoam precludes the as- 
sumption of any special force in emf, scil. 
‘presse sequi,’ Gdiacmdotws ocuvodevouy 
Tov troxpwouevov, as h ocKia TO Toma, 
Coray; the only relations presented to 
our thoughts seem those of before and 
after. Kat clearly does not belong to 
tis (Huther), but is attached with a 
kind of descensive force to émakoA.; see 
notes on Gal. iii. 4. 

25. woavtws| ‘in like manner:’ 
good works are in this respect not os 
érépws to sins; the same characteristic 
division may be recognized; some are 
Open witnesses, others are secret wit- 
nesses, but their testimony cannot be 
suppressed. Zachmann inserts 6€ after 
@oavtws, with AFG; Aug, Boern., 
Goth. ; this reading is not improbable, 
but has scarcely sufficient external sup- 
port. Tad Epya Ta Kadal 
‘ their good works ;’ the repetition of the 
article is intended to give prominence to 
the epithet and more fully to mark the 


~God’s name, honor your 


Cuapr. Vials 2. 


Servants, for the sake of 


1 TIMOTHY. 99 


VI. “Oaoe cic tro kvyov Sodda1, Tovs 


masters, especially if they lolous Seaqrotas Taons Tins dElous HryeloSe- 


are believers and brethren. 
Teach this. 


7 \ \ St an al Nee ! 
aay, Wa 6) TO Gvo“a TOD Ocod Kat 7) SiwdacKadia 


Bracdnphra. ? of 6€ murtovs EyovTes SeotrdTas, pw) KaTappovei- 


_ antithesis between the auapria: and the 


kaAa& épya; see Middleton, Art. chap. 
vill. p. 114 (ed. Rose), compare Winer, 
Gr. § 20. a, p: 120. On the somewhat 
frequent use of the expression, cada epya 
in these Epp., comp. notes on Tit. iii. 8. 
Ta &%AAwS ~xovTal ‘they which are 
otherwise, i.e. which are not mpddnda. 
To refer this to cad& alike mars sense 
and parallelism. In the concluding words 
the paraphrase of Huther, ‘ they cannot 
always remain hidden’ (kpvBijva) is 
scarcely exact: the aor. infin., though 
usually found after éxw, Svvaua, ete. 
(Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 298), cannot 
wholly lose its significance, but must 
imply that the deeds cannot be concealed 
at all. They may not be patent and con- 
spicuous (7p é dnAa], but they cannot be 
definitely covered up: they will be seen 
and recognized some time or other. 


CuapTer VI. 1. id Cuydyv Sod- 
Aout] ‘under the yoke, as bond-servants ;’ 
not ‘servants as are under the yoke,’ 
Auth. Ver.; still less ‘under the yoke 


o> v ° = 
of slavery ’ (lZopass (gad Syr.,) 


a needless éy Sa Svoiv. AovAor is not the 
subject, but an explanatory predicate ap- 
pended to jd (vydsv, words probably in- 
serted to mark, not an extreme case 
(‘the harshest bondage ’ Bloomf.),— for 
the language and exhortation is perfectly 
general,—- but to point to the actual cir- 
cumstances of the case. They were in- 
disputably id (vydv, let them comport 
themselves accordingly. Similar exhor- 
tations are found Eph. vi. 5 sq., Col. iii. 
22) Lit. 1...9, comp. 4 ,Cor, vil,.21,, all 
apparently directed against the very pos- 
sible misconception that Christianity was 


to be understood as putting master and 
bond-servant on an equality, or as inter- 
fering with the existing social relations. 
tous idious Seon.| ‘their own masters,’ 
those who stand in that distinct personal 
relation to them, and whom they are 
bound to obey; see especially the note 
on Y10s in comment. on Eph. v. 22. On 
the distinction between deomdrys and Kv- 
pios [Kup. yuvaurds kal vidy avip kal marnp, 
deom. 5€ dpyvpwyhrwy, Ammonius, s. v.], 
see Trench, Synon. § 28. St. Paul here 
correctly uses the unrestricted term dec- 
méTns as more in accordance with the 
foregoing bmd (uydy, compare Tit. ii. 9; 
it is noticeable that in his other Epistles 
he uses «vpuos. rdons Tims] 
‘all honor ;’ honor in every form and 
case in which it is due to them. On the 
true extensive meaning of mas, see notes 
on Eph. i. 8. 
‘the doctrine,’ se. ‘ His doctrine,’ Syriac, 
Auth. Ver.: compare Tit. ii. 10, thy 
didackariay TOV cwThpos Hud@y Ocod. At- 
dack. clearly points to the Gospel, the 
evangelical doctrine (Theodoret), which 
would be evil spoken of, ifit were thought 
to inculcate insubordination ; see Chrys- 
ostom in loc. 


n St8acKkadrlal 


2. trarovs| ‘believing,’ z. e. Chris- 
tian masters; slightly emphatic, as tke 
order of the words suggests. The slaves 
who were under heathen masters were 
positively to regard their masters as de- 
serving of honor, the slaves under Chris- 
tian masters were, negatively, not to evince 
any want of respect. The former were 
not to regard their masters as their infe- 
riors, and to be insubordinate, the latter 
were not to think them their equals, and 
to be disrespectful. MaAXOv 
Sova.] ‘the more serve them;’ waddov is 


100 


LSP aroun ot X. 


Cuap. VI. 2, 3. 


, ’ n a ¢ 
Twcay, Ott adedool cio" GAA paddov SovrAEvVETwWGAY, OTL TLaTOl 


\ an 
elow Kal ayarntol of THS evepyecias avTiawPavopevo. 


diSacKxe Kal TapakdneL. 


If any one teach differently, 
he is besotted, fosters dis- 
putes, and counts godliness 
amere gain. Let us be con- 
tented ; riches are a snare 
anda source of many sor- 
rows. 


not merely corrective, ‘ potius serviant,’ 
Beza, but intensive, ‘the rather,’ Hamm., 
‘magis serviani, Vulg., Goth. Beza’s 
correction, as is not unfrequently the case, 
is therefore here unnecessary ; see Hand, 
Tursell. s. v. ‘magis,’ Vol. 111. p. 554. 

ére mioto)l K.7.A.] ‘ because believing 
and beloved (of God) are they who,’ ete. 
there is some little difficulty in the con- 
struction and explanation. The article, 
however, shows that of ay7iA. is the sub- 
ject, moro) kal ay., the predicate: the 
recurrence of the epithet moroi, and the 
harmony of structure still further sug- 
gest that the masters, and not the ser- 
vants (Wetst., Bretschneider) are the 
subjects alluded to. The real difficulty 
lies in the interpretation of the following 
words. oi avtiAapBavépu.| 
‘they who are partakers of, ‘qui partici- 
pes sunt,’ Vulgate, Claromanus ; so too 
Copt., Gothic, Armenian, compare Syr. 


metab che) [qui requie fruuntur]. 
*AvTiAauB. is used. in two other passages 
in the N. T., both in the sense ‘ succur- 
rere, Luke i. 54 (LXX Isaiah xli. 9, 
pum), Acts xx. 35. This is obviously 
inapplicable. The usual (ethical) mean- 
ing in classical Greek is ‘to take a part 
in,’ ‘to engage in,’ whether simply, e. 9. 
Thucyd. 1F. 8, avtiA. (sc. Tod moA€uov), 
or with reference to the primitive mean- 
ing, in a more intensive sense, ‘ to cling 
to,’ and thence ‘ secure, get possession 
of.’ e. g. Thucyd. 111. 22, dyvriA. Tod ao- 
gadods. It does not thus seem a very 
serious departure from the classical mean- 


TavUTa 


3 Ei tus érepodidacKadel Kal pn Tpocép- 
xeTat UyLaivovowy oyos Tois Tov Kupiov jwav 
"Incod Xpictod Kal Th Kat’ evoéBevay didac- 


ing of ay7:A. to take it, with a subdued 
intensive force, as ‘percipere,’ ‘frui’ (see 
Euseb. Hist. v. 15, etwdias tooaitns ay- 
ted., cited by Scholef. Hints, p. 120, and 
examples in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 306), 
if we may not indeed almost give ay7l a 
formal reference to the reciprocal relation 
(compare Coray) between master and 
servant, and translate ‘who receive in 
return (for food, protection, ete.) their 
benefit.’ In either of these latter mean- 
ings, 7 evepy. will most simply and nat- 
urally refer to the ‘beneticium’ (not 
merely the evepyia, Coray) shown to the 
master in the services and edvo.a (Eph. 
vi. 7) of the bondservant. Chrysost., al. 
refer the evepyecta to the kind acts which 
the masters do to the slaves ; this, though 
perhaps a little more Jexically exact, is 
contextually far less satisfactory ; and this 
seems certainly a case where the context 
may be allowed to have its fullest weight 
in determining the meaning of the sepa- 
rate words. To refer evepyerta to the 
divine benevolence ‘(beneficentia Dei, 
nimirum in Christo,’ Beza) seems mani- 
festly untenable. Tadta K.T.A.| 
‘these things teach and exhort;’ 7b wey 
didakrTic@s Td 5é mpaxtin@s, Theod. Tisch. 
and Lachm. both refer these words to the 
next clause; so apparently Chrys., but 
not cum. It is doubtful whether this 
is correct: the opposition between 6i- 
dacke and érepod. is certainly thus more 
clearly seen, but the prominent position 
of radra (contrast ch. iv. 11) seems to 
suggest a more immediate connection 
with what precedes. For the meaning 


Cuap. VI. 8, 4. 


WLI MOT HY : 


101 


s , \ + | fi; > \ a \ / 
Kania, 4 TETUPWTAL, pendev ETLOTAMEVOS, ANAA. VOT WV Tept EntH- 


aes Kal royouaxias, €F av yiverar PYovos, épews, Bracdypiat, 


of mapardA., see notes ch. i. 3, and on 
Eph. iv. 1. 

3. é€repod:backadre?t] ‘teaches 
other doctrine,’ ‘ plays the érepodidacKa- 
Aos:” comp. Aadpodibackadreiv, Irenzus, 
ap. Euseb. Hist. 1v. 11, and see notes on 
ch. i. 3, the only other passage in the 
N. T. where the word occurs. 


mpogéepxeTat| ‘draws nigh to,’ ‘as- 


> 


vy. ” 
sents to,” Syr. a pile A&o [accedens]. 


Bentley (Phileleuth. Lips. p. 72, Lond. 
1713) objects to mpocepx., suggesting 
Tpocexet OY mpocéexeTai; there is no rea- 
son, however, for any change in the ex- 
pression. Ilpocépx., when thus used 
with an abstract substantive, appears to 
convey the ideas of ‘attention to,’ e. g. 
mpooeAvery Tots vduots, Diod. Sic. 1. 95, 
Tpoc. TH pirocogia, Philostr. Ep. Socr. 
11. 16, and thence of ‘assent to’ (comp. 
Acts x. 28, and the term mpoofAvror) any 
principle or object, e.g. mpooeAddvres 
&petn, Philo, Migr. Abr. § 16, Vol. 1. p. 
449 (ed. Mang.), and still more appo- 
sitely, Tol’s tv “lovdalwy Séyuacr mpoo- 
epx:, Ireneeus, Fragm. (Pfaff, p. 27). 
Bretschneider cites Ecclus. i. 30, but 
there péBw Kup. is clearly the dative of 
See Loesner, Obs. p. 405 sq., 
where several other examples are adduc- 
ed from Philo. byialv 
Adyors| ‘ sound (healthful) words ;’ see 
notes on chap. i. 10. Tots TOD 
Kup.| ‘those of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ 
i.e. which emanate from our Lord,— 
either directly, or through his apostles 
and teachers: not the genitive objecti, 
‘sermones qui sunt de Christo,’ Est., 
but the gen. originis ; compare Hartung, 
Casus, p. 23, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 6, 
kal tH «kat evo€B.] ‘and tothe doc- 
trine which is according to godliness ;’. 
clause, cumulatively explanatory of the 
foregoing ; ‘ verba Christi yere sunt doc- 


manner, 


trina ad pietatem faciens,’ Grot. The 
expression 7 kar’ evoeB. is not ‘que ad 
pietatem ducit,’ Leo, Moller,—a mean- 
ing, however, which, with some modifi- 
cations, may be grammatically defended 
(comp. 2 Tim. i. 1, Tit. i.1, and seeWiner, 
Gr. s. Vv. katd, ¢, p. 358, Rost u. Palm, 
Lex, ib. 11. 8, Vol. 1. p. 1598),— but ac- 
cording to the usual meaning of the prepo- 
sition, ‘qua pietati consentanea est,’ Est. ; 
there were (to imitate the language of 
Chrys. on Tit. i. 1) different kinds of &- 
dackaAla; this was specially 7 kar’ edoéB. 
didackaAla. For the meaning of eicéB., 
see notes on ch. ii. 2. 

4. retipwrtat| Not simply ‘super- 
bus est,’ Vulg., nor even ‘ inflatus est,’ 
Clarom., but ‘he is beclouded, besotted, 
with pride,’ see notes on ch. iii. 6. The 
apodosis begins with this verse: even if 
apioraco kK. T. A. (Rec.) were genuine it 
would be impossible to adopt any other 
logical construction. 
undty éemiotdpevos| ‘yet knowing 
nothing ;’? see notes onch.i.7. If it had 
been ovdéy émor., it would have been 
a somewhat more emphatic statement of 
an absolute ignorance on the part of the 
Erepodidaor. : it must be always obsery- 
ed, however, that this latter is a less usual 
construction in the N. T., see Green, Gr. 
p. 122. The connection of ui and ob 
with participles, a portion of grammar re- 
quiring some consideration, is laboriously 
illustrated by Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 274 
—293. vooay wep) (nT.| 
‘ doting, ailing (op. to by:av. Adyor), about 
questions :’ wept marks the object round 
about which the action of the verb is tak- 
ing place; compare notes on ch. i. 19. 
In the use of wep) with a gen., the deriv- 
ative meanings, ‘as concerns,’ ‘as re- 
gards,’ greatly predominate: the primary 
idea, however, still remains : wept with a 
genitive, serves to mark an object as the 


102 


SMe ig! le Da Ul a 


Cuap. VI. 5. 


irévotat rovnpal, 5 SvatrapatpiBal dvepSappévov aYSpwrrwv Tov 


fal I? rn ’ 
voov Kal dmreotepnuevev Ths adnSeias, vouifovtwy Topicpov éivat 


central point, as it were, of the activity 
(e. g. 1 Cor. xii. 1, the mvevy. Sapa form- 
ed as it were the centre of the &yvoia) ; 
the further idea of any action or motion 
round it is supplied by ep with the 
accusative; compare Winer, Grammar, 
§ 47. ¢., p. 334, Donaldson, Grammar, 


§ 482. On (yrhoers, see notes on chap. 
Tae 
Aoyouaxtas| ‘debates about words, 


verbal controversies ;’ Gamat Aeyoueva ; in 


Latin, ‘ verbivelitationes,’ Plaut. Aszn. 
11. 2. 41, Adyov mpocdvtn, Greg. Naz. 
Carm. 15, Vol. 11. p. 200: ‘ contentio- 
sas disputationes de verbis magis quam 
de rebus,’ Caly. These idle and barren 
controversies degenerate into actual strife 
and contention, and give rise to bad feel- 
ings and bitter expressions of them: bd 
dotocopias emnpucvoe epi{ovtes TeAovan, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 759 (cited by 
Huther). In the following words the 
weight of evidence seems, on reconsider- 
ation, slightly in favor of pes (Tisch. 
ed. 7); we adopt it therefore instead of 
eps (ed. 1). BarAaconplat| 
‘evil speakings,’ ‘ railings, — not against 
God (Theodoret), but, as the context 
clearly implies, against one another: 
comp. Eph. iv. 31 and notes. On the 
derivation of BAarpnuéw, see notes on ch. 
i. 13 
similarly referred to God, by Chrys. and 
Theoph.; but the context here again 
seems clearly to limit the words to ‘ evil 
and malevolent surmisings’ against those 
who adopt other views. 
Aeydu. in the N. T., occurs not unfre- 
quently in classical Greek joined with 
epithets or in a context which convey an 
unfavorable meaning, e. g. Demosthenes 
Olympiod. 1178, tmédvowt madactal kal 
mpopaces &ikot, Sometimes even alone, 
e. g. Polybius, History, v 15. 1, év 
xalpovtes, Philo, Leg. 


bmdvotat Tov. is 


‘Yrdv., an Gm. 


brovola joav 


ad Caium, § 6, Volume it. p. 551 (edit. 
Mang.), eiémevos Tas trovoias Tov TiBe- 


plov. 
5. d:amapatpiBail ‘lasting con- 
flicts,’ ‘obstinate contests ;’ ‘ conflicta- 


oo 
tiones, Vulg., Clarom., Syriac Lesa: 
[contritio.— see Michael. in Cast. Lex. 
s.v.]. The preposition 8a has here its 
usual and primary force of * thorough- 
ness,’ ‘completeness,’ intensifying the 
meaning of the binary compound zrapa- 
TpiBat, scil. duoiBatar kat auiAAnrical ma- 
patp., Coray ; compare Winer, Gr. § 16. 
4, p. 92. This latter word (maparp.), as 
its derivation suggests, properly signifies 
‘collisions,’ thence derivatively, ‘ hostili- 
ties,’ ‘enmities,/ compare Polyb. Hist. 
11. 36. 5, broWiat mpds GAAHAOUs Kal Tapa- 
TpiBal, 1V. 21. 5, mapatptBas kad didori- 
plas; and xxi. 13.5, xxurr. 10. 4, al. 
There is then no allusion to moral conta- 
gion (comp. Chrysost.), but to the colli- 
sion of disputants whose mere, Aoyoua- 
x'at had led at least to ‘truces inimici- 
tias.’ To retain mapadiatpiBat (Rec. 
‘ profitless disputations ’), as is still done 
by Bloomfield, following Tittmann, Sy- 
non. I. p. 233, is contrary to every prin- 
ciple of sound criticism: in the 1st place 
mapadiarp. is found only in a few cursive 
mss. and Theoph., while d:a7ap. is found 
in ADFGL; great majority of mss.; 
Clem., Basil (Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., 
Tisch.) ; 2ndly, it is highly probable that 
the reading mapadiarp. was a correction, 
as compounds of d:a-mapa are rare; and 
8rdly, wapadiarp. is in fact expressed in 
Aoyouax. and superfluous, while the 
reading of the text is perfectly natural 
and consistent. There are a few similar 
compounds, e.g. d:araparnpodua (*), 2 
Sam. iii. 30, d:iarapaximrecda: (7) 1 Kgs. 
vi. 4, diamapdyw, Greg. Nyss. Vol. 11. p. 
177, diavapactpw, Schol. Lucian. Vol. 11. 


Grate. VI..6: 


yh > / 
Tip evoeBecav. 


p- 796 (IHemst.). diePdapu. 
tov vodr| ‘corrupted in their mind, 
There is no reason whatever for trans- 
lating vods ‘intellect,’ as Peile zn loc., 
nor any scriptural evidence for the dis- 
tinction he draws between the vous as 
‘the noetic (?) faculty, the understand- 
ing,’ and the ¢pyyv as ‘the reason.’ Noiis 
is here, as not unfrequently in the N. T. 
(comp. Rom. i. 28, Eph. iv. 17, Titus i. 
15, al.), not merely the ‘mens speculati- 
va,’ but the willing as well as the thinking 
part in man, the human mvevdua in fact, 
not simply ‘quatenus cogitat et intelli- 
git’ (Olsh. Opusc. p. 156), but also ‘ qua- 
tenus vult:’ phy (ppéves) on the other 
hand only occurs twice, in 1 Cor. xiv. 
2). Fora detailed account of voids, see 
Beck, Seelenlehre, 11.18, p. 49 sq., De- 
litzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 1v. 5, p. 139 sq., 
and compare also Olshausen, Opuse. p. 
156, whose definitions are however rather 
too narrow. The accusative, it 
need scarcely be remarked is an accus. 
“of the remoter object,’ and specifies that 
part of the subject zm, or on which the 
action of the verb takes place, Winer, 
Gr. § 32. 5, p. 204. Scheuerl. Synt. 1x. 
2, p. 65. The origin of this construction 
is probably to be looked for in verbs with 
two accusatives which, when changed 
into the passive, retain the accusative rez 
unaltered ; thence the usage became ex- 
tended to other verbs, compare Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 52. 4. 2 sq., Hartung, Cusus, 
p- 61 sq. ameacTEp. THS GA.| 
‘destitute of the truth,’ immediate conse- 
quence of the foregoing: they were not 
only eorepnu. THs aA. (oTEpéw, however, 
does not occur in N. T.), but dareotepyu. ; 
the truth was tuken away from them ; 
compare ch. i. 19, Tit. i. 14, where its 
first rejection is stated as the act of the 
unhappy men themselves. 

mopiamoy «.T.A.] ‘that godliness is a 
source of gain ;’ clearly not, as the article 


Te MLO Eh Yis 


103 


6 "Eotw 6& Topicpos péyas 7 evoeBeua peta 


proves (Jelf, Gr. § 460. 1), ‘ that gain is 
godliness, as Syr. and Auth, Ver. Topio- 
wos appears here and v. 6 not so much 
‘gain’ in the abstract, as ‘a source or 
means of gain’ (‘a gainful trade,’ Cony- 
beare); comp. Plutarch, Cato Major, § 
25, duo) Kexphodat udvols Topicmots ~yewp- 
yia Kal pedot; and on the termination 
-wos, Donaldson Cratyl. § 253, Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 511. The sentiment of the 
verse is expressed more fully, Tit. i. 11, 
diddoKovres & wy Set aitxpov Képdous xa- 
pw. The Rec. inserts apictago amd tev 
rowvtey with KL, Syr. (both), al., but 
the authorities for the omission, AD'FG ; 
Vulg. Clarom., Goth., Copt., al., very 
distinctly preponderate. 

6. toptouods has here no immediate 
spiritual reference (Matth.) to futwre and 
heavenly gain (oldévioy mopifer (wnv, The- 
od.) but points rather to the actual gain 
in this life, and the virtual riches which 
godliness when accompanied by abtdpk. 
(comp. notes on ch. i. 11, and on Eph. 
vi. 23) unfailingly supplies ; xépdos éorly 
h evoeBere cay Kad jmets mh TWAcidvwr edi- 
€ueva [Sic], GAAG TH adTapKeig TTOLXaueEr, 
Gicum.; similarly Chrysost., Theoph. : 
‘the heart, amid every outward want, is 
then only truly rich when it not only 
wants nothing which it has not, but has 
that which raises it above what it has 
not,’ Wiesinger. Pagan authors (see 
examples in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 
575) have similarly spoken of airdpx. 
being gain ; the apostle associates abtdpk. 
with evo¢B., and gives the mere ethical 
truth a higher religious significance. 
av’tapretas| ‘contentedness,’ not‘ com- 
petency,’ Hamm. ; ‘ sufficientia est ani- 
mus sud sorte contentus, ut aliena non 
appetat nec quidquam extra se querat,’ 
Justin. in loc.: compare the perhaps 
slightly more exact definition of Clem. 
Alex. Ped. 11. 12, Vol. 1. p. 247 (Pot- 
ter), abrapk. eis eorly dproumévn ots Set 


104 


1 ENO TAY . 


Cuapr. VI. 7, 8, 


avtapkelas. 7 ovdév yap eionvéyKaper eis Tov Kocpov, Sfdov Ort 


ove é€eveyxeiy Te SuvapeNa * 


[see Estius], kat 5¢ abris mopiotinh Tov 
mpos Tov pakdptoy ouyTeAovvTwy Biov. 
The subst. occurs again in 2 Cor. ix. 8, 
but objectively, scil. ‘sufficiency,—a 
meaning which obviously would not be 
suitable in the present case; aitdpkns 
occurs Phil. iv. 11. 

7. ovdév yadp| Confirmation of the 
preceding clause, especially of the last 
words in it, meta aitaprelas. As we 
brought nothing into the world, and as 
that very fact implies that we shall carry 
nothing out (comp. Job i. 21), our real 
source of gain must be something inde- 
pendent of what is merely addititious, 
ote th Set qpiy ray mepittay ci pundev 
peAAomev exel cuverdyeosat, Theophyl. ; 
we entered the world with nothing, we 
shall leave the world with nothing, why 
should we then grasp after treasures so 
essentially earthly and transitory ? 
ovbdé efeveyKety k.T.A.] ‘wecannot 
also take anything out ;’ these words are 
clearly emphatic, and contain the princi- 
pal thought: ‘ excutit natura redeuntem 
sicut intrantem,’ Senec. Hpist. 102. It 
is this inability to take anything away 
which furnishes the most practical argu- 
ment for the truth of the assertion. If 
we could take anything out there would 
be an end to avraprem ; our present and 
future lots would be felt too closely de- 
pendent on each other for a patient ac- 
quiescence in any assigned state: piety 
with contentment would then prove no 
great mopicuds. 

8. 2xovres Se] ‘but if we have;’ 
conditional member (comp. Donaldson, 
Gr. § 505) introducing a partial contrast 
to what precedes: the dé is thus not for 
ovv, Syr.,—a particle which would give 
a different turn to the statement,— still 
less equivalent to caf, Auth. Version, but 
points to a suppressed thought suggested 
by ovd€ eteveyxety . T. A.; ‘ something 


éyovtes d€ Ovatpopas Kal oKeTTac- 


addititious we must certainly have whiie 
we are in this world, but iff ete.. The 
opposite force of the particle is thus prop- 
erly preserved : ‘ aliquid in mente habet 
ad quod respiciens oppositionem infert,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 365, compare 
notes on Gal. iii. 11. 

diatpopas kat ox.| ‘food and cloth- 
ing;’ both words am. Aeydu. in the N. T. 
The prep. in the former substantive per- 
haps may hint ata fairly sufficient and 
permanent supply, compare Xen. Mem. 
II. 7. 6, TH Te oiklay wacay Siatpéper kab 
(f SaxiAGs. The latter substantive prob- 
ably. only refers to ‘ clothing,’ Clarom., 
Arm., not to ‘shelter,’ Goth. (4), Peile, 
or to both, as Vulg. (7), ‘quibus tega- 
mur,’ De Wette ; for see Aristotle, Polit. 
Vil. 17, oxémacua puixpdy dumoxeiv (Wet- 
stein), and compare the passage cited by 
Wolf out of Sext. Empir. rx. 1, tpopis 
kal okeTagudTwy Kal THs “AANS TOD odua- 
Tos émimeAeias, Where it similarly does 
not seem necessary (with Fabricius) to 
extend the reference: so also Chrys., all 
the Greek expositors, and appy. Syr., as 


Oo = v 
{Awm52 [tegumentum] occurs else- 


where, e. g. Acts xii. 8, in definite refer- 
ence to a garment. 

apretSnadmedsal ‘we shall be satis- 
Jied:’ the use of the future is slightly 
doubtful. It does not seem exactly im- 
peratival, Goth., Auth. Version,— though 
this meaning might be defended, see 
Winer, Gram. § 43. 5, p. 282, nor even . 
ethical, ‘we ought to be, we must be so,’ 
compare Bernhardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 377, 
— but, as the following verse seems to 
suggest, more definitely future, and as 
stating what will actually be found to con- 
stitute aitdpkea ; ‘ simul etiam affirmare 
aliquid intendit apostolus,’ Estius, who 
with Hammond refers to Syr. (‘sufficient 
to us are’) where this view is more 


Cuap. VI. 9, 10. 


ata, TovToLs apKkeoSnoopeda. 
lied ’ 


1 TIMOTHY. 


105 


9 Oi &é BovdAopevot mrovTEtY 


\ \ Ul 
eumimtovow els Tretpacpov Kal Taryida Kal ériSsuplas Todas 


avontous Kat BraBepas, aitwes Bvdiover tors avSpwrrovs eis 


ts 
dESpov Kal amTwevav. 


roughly expressed: so appy. Green, Gr. 
p- 27, and De W.., who refers the future 
to what might ‘ reasonably be expected.’ 
For the practical applications of this text 
see 10 sermons by Bp. Patrick, Works, 
Vol. 1x. p. 44 sq. (Oxf. 1858). 
_ 9. of SE «.7.A.] Class of persons 
opposed to those last mentioned. Chrys- 
ostom with his usual acuteness calls at- 
tention to BovAduevor; ovx adds eimev, 
0i TAouTODYTES, GAA’ Of BovAdu. eat yap 
Twa kal xphuata éxovTa Kad@s olkovomeiv 
KaTappovovyTa avTay. 
maryldal ‘a snare;’ not ‘snares,’ Syr. 
(comp. Bloomf.), but ‘ a snare,’ scil. rod 
diaBddov, which D!FG; Vulg., Clarom., 
al., actually add. There is, of course, 
here no év 6:a Svoty (Coray) : the latter 
substantive somewhat specifies and partic- 
ularizes the former. The form the temp- 
tation assumed was that of an entangling 
power, from which it was not easy for 
the captive to extricate himself; comp. 
Moller in loc. &vontous| 
‘ foolish :’ on the proper meaning of this 
word, and its distinction from &ppwy and 
aovveros, see notes on (zal. ili. 1. The 
Vulg., a few other Vy., and three mss. 
read dvovjrovs, a wholly unnecessary 
correction ; the lusts involved elements 
of what was foolish as well as what was 
hurtful; Chrysostom explains specifi- 
cally. altives| ‘which 
indeed,’ ‘ seeing they ;’ explanatory of the 
foregoing epithets, more especially of the 
last : on the force of doris see notes on 


? 


Gal. iv. 24. Budigovery| 
‘drown,’ ‘whelm in;’ only here and 
Luke v. 7: ‘éumimr. ..... Bvdi¢. tristis gra- 


datio,’ Beng. The word, as Kypke sug- 
gests, ‘subinnuit infinita et ineluctabilia 
esse mala in que precipites dantur ay- 


14 


10 fifa yap TavTwv TOV KAKa@Y éoTW 


ari,’ Obs.. Vol. 11. p. 367; there is, how- 
ever, no idea of ‘ preeceps dari,’ nor is it 
a metaphor from a ship ‘ that is plunged 
head foremost into the sea,’ Bloomf.,. who 
cites Polyb. 11. 10. 2, where éBisioav 
means, as the verb always does, ‘ caused 
to sink,’ without any reference whatever 
to direction. 
am &X.| ‘destruction and perdition.’ The 

force of the compound form (ard marks 

‘completion,’ compare amepyd(oua al., 

Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. awd, B 4) and 

more abstract termination of the latter 

word perhaps afford a hint that a climac- 

tic force is intended: ddAedpos [on the 

termination, see Pott, Ht Forsch. Vol. 

11. p. 555] is ‘ destruction,’ in a general 

sense, whether of body or soul; am@Aem 

intensifies it by pointing mainly to the 

latter. “OAepos is only used by St. Paul, 

1 Cor. v. 5, 6A. ris capkéds, 1 Thess. v. 3, 

aipvidios 6A. éplotara:, where it points 

more to temporal destruction, and 2 

Thess. i. 9 (Tisch.), where the epithet 

aidvios is specially added to support its 

application to final ‘ perdition.’ 

10. pi¢a] ‘a@ root,’ or perhaps rather 
‘the root,’ Copt., the absence of the article - 
probably not leaving it to be implied that 
there are other vices which might be 
termed ‘roots of all evils’ (ed. 1, comp. 
Middl., Gr. Art. 111. 4. 1, p. 51 sq.), but 
simply disappearing owing to the rule of 
subject and predicate overriding the law 
of ‘correlation’ Middl. Art. 111. 3. 6); 
compare Lysias, de Ced. Erutosth. § 7, 
emeidhn Mol ) mNTHp eTEACUTHOE TayTwY 


dAeSpov kat 


TOV KAKOV amodavovca aiTia mot yeyevnTat, 
Demosth. de Mvgalop. § 28, p. 208, rav- 
Thy apxiy otoay mdyTwy Tav Kakav. The 
example urged by Alford (1 Cor. xi. 3) 
is not fully in point, for (1) the article is 


106 


IP TEMO THY. 


Cuar. Viel; 


/ Ka \ > , > y > x a / 
pirapyupia, Hs TWES OpEyouEevor aTTETAAYNS OAV ATO TIS TioTEwS 
Kai éavTovs TrepléTretpay OdvvaLs TroAXats. 


Follow after righteousness 
and Christian virtues, fight 
the good fight, and in 
Christ's name keep His 
commands, even -till His 
glorious coming; glory to 
Him ; amen. 


inserted in the first member, and (2) in 
the second member the governed sub- 
stantive is anarthrous and in the third a 
proper name. In illustration of the gen- 
eral form of the expression, comp. Plut. 
de Lib. Educ. § 7, mnyh kad fifa kadoxg- 
yasias Td vouipov Tuxeiv madelas. 

piraapyuvpia] ‘love of money ;’ am. dre- 
you. in the N. T.; the adjective occurs 
twice, Luke xvi. 14, 2 Tim. iii. 2. The 
kindred but more general and active sin 
mAecovetia is that which was dwelt upon 
by the sacred writers. On the distinc- 
tion between these words (which however 
is on the surface) see Trench, Synon. § 
24, but comp. notes on Kph.iv.19. The 
sentiment is illustrated by Suicer, Zhes. 
Vol. 11. p. 1427. hs 
bpeydu.] ‘ which some reaching out after.’ 
-Commentators have dwelt much upon 
the impropriety of the image, it being 
asserted that @:Aapyupia is itself an dpetis 
(De Wette.). The image is certainly 
not perfectly correct, but if the passive 
nature of giAapyupia (see Trench, / c.) 
be remembered, the violation of the im- 
age will be less felt. Under any circum- 
stances dpeyouevo. cannot be correctly 
translated ‘giving themselves up to,’ 
Bretschn., al. Both here, ch. iii. 1, and 
Heb. xi. 16, the only passages in the N. 


T. where the word occurs, wpééato, Syr. 
Me 


vy +¥, 
“ow : sesh [‘concupivit,’ “de- 
sideravit’] is simply ‘ desired,’ ‘ covet- 
ed,’ literally ‘ reached out the hands ea- 
gerly to take;’ comp. Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 477. On the derivation (6—pey, com- 
pare ‘rego’), see Donalds. ib, and Pott, 


1 Sv 6, @ dvSpwire Tod Ocod, tadta hebyer 
Siwxe 5é Siuxatocvvny, evoéBevav, Tictw, ayarny, 
UTFOMOVHY, TpavTra yey" 


Etym. Forsch, Vol. 1. p. 219, Vol. 11. p. 
167. mMeprewerpar| 
‘pierced themselves through ;’ Gm. Acyou- 
in N. T.; compare Philo, in Flace. § 1, 
Vol. 11. p. 517 (ed. Mang.), a3pdéous avn- 
KéoToLs TepieTetpe KaKois, and the nume- 
rous instances of a similar metaphorical 
use collected by Suicer, s. v. The prep. 
mept does not here define the action as 
taking place ‘round’ or ‘about’ (‘un- 
diquaque,’ Beza), but conveys the idea 
of ‘ piercing,’ ‘ going through,’/— a mean- 
ing well maintained by Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 178; compare Lucian, Gall. § 2, xpéa 
— Tepimemapueva Tois oBeAois, Diod. Sic. 
xvi. 80, Adyxais mepireipducvor. The 
odvvee here mentioned are not merely 
outward evils (‘ gravissima mala hujus 
seculi,’ Estius), nor even the anxious 
cares (Justin.) or desires (Chrysostom) 
which accompany g:Aapyvpia, but more 
probably the gnawings of conscience,— 
‘conscientize de male partis mordentis,’ 
Bengel. The word odvv7 (only here and 
Rom. ix. 2), it may be remarked, is not 
derived from éd0vs (Bloomf.), but from a 
root AY- (comp. Sun), with a vowel pre- 
fix; see Pott. Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 
210. : 
11. ob d€] ‘ But thou,’ in distinet con- 
trast to the preceding ties, ver. 10. 

&vSpwre rod @cod] It is doubtful 
whether this is an official term (sc. ‘ Dei 
internuncius,’ pdx wx, Compare 2 
Pet. i. 21), or merely a general designa- 
tion. The former view is adopted by 
Theodoret, and is certainly plausible, as 
the evangelists’ office (2 Tim. iv. 5) in 
the N. T. might be fairly compared with 


Cnap. VI. 12. 


ie TIMOTHY. 


107 


12 aywvitov Tov Kadov ayava THS TlaTews, eTiNaBod THs aiwviov 
n ’ a 7 uA Nace / \ \ € / P| / 
Swijs, els HV EXANS YS Kal @pmodoynoas THY KaANY OmoNoYLaV évwTrLoVv 


that of the prophets in the O. T.: as, 
however, the context is of a perfectly 
general character, it seems more natural 
to give the expression a more extended 
reference, as in 2 Tim. iii. 17; comp. 
Chrysost., mavres wev UvSpwirot Tov Ocod, 
GAAG Kuplws of Sikatol, ov Kata Toy Tis 
Snutoupylas Adyov GAAG Kal Kata Toy THs 
Oiketdoews. tattTa] The 
reference of this pronoun is frequently a 
matter of difficulty in this Epistle: it 
seems here most naturally to refer to ver. 
9, 10, i.e. to piAapyupia, and the evil 
principles and results associated with it, 
‘avaritiam et peccata que ex illa radice 
procedunt,’ Estius. 

dixatocuyny] ‘righteousness;’ not 
merely ‘justice,’ but either the virtue 
which is opposed to ad:x/a (Rom. vi. 13), 
and to the general tendency of the pow- 
ers of evil (2 Cor. xi. 15), or, as appy. 
here and 2 Tim. ii. 22, iii. 16, in a more 
general sense,—‘ right conduct conform- 
able to the law of God’ (2 Cor. vi. 14, 
compare Tit. ii. 12); see Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 1. p. 169, Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 1. 2, p. 190. On the more 
strictly dogmatic meaning see the excel- 
lent remarks in Knox, Remains, Vol. 1. 
p- 276. miativ] * fath,’ 
in its usual theological sense (rep éorly 
evaytia TH Qnthoe, Chrys.), not ‘ fideli- 
ty,’ ‘die einzelne christliche Pfligct der 
Treue,’ Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 92, 
_ note. On smouorvn, ‘ perseverantia,’ 
‘brave patience’ (‘ malorum fortis tole- 
rantia,’ Grot. on Rom. viii. 25), see notes 
on 2 Tim. ii. 10, and on Tit. ii. 2. 
mpavmaderay|  ‘meekness of heart or 
feelings ;? a word of rare occurrence 
(Philo de Abrah. § 37, Vol. 11. p. 31, Ig- 
natius Tvall. 8), perhaps slightly more 
specific than mpaiirns, scil. mpaiitns dAwy 
nav waxav Tis Wuxes, Coray im loc. The 
reading of the Rec. mpadrnra (with 


DK. ; al.; Chrys., Theod.) has every 
appearance of being a mere correction, 
and is rejected even by Scholz. The 
virtues here mentioned seem to group 
themselves into pairs ; d:catoc. and evoB. 
have the widest relations, pointing to 
general conformity to God’s law and 
practical piety; miotis and aGydrn are 
the fundamental principles of Christian- 
ity; bron. and mpaim., the principles on 
which a Christian ought to act towards 
his gainsayers and opponents ; compare 
Huth. The article is occasionally omit- 
ted before abstract nouns, see examples 
in Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, p. 109. 

12. roy kardv a&ydval ‘the good 
strife,’ Hamm. ; the contest and struggle 
which the Christian has to maintain 
against the world, the flesh, and the 
devil ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 7. It is doubt- 
ful how far the agonistic metaphor is to 
be maintained in this verse. Grammat- 
ical considerations seem certainly in fa- 
vor of the two imperatives (here, on ac- 
count of the emphatic asyndeton, without 
kat) being referred both to the metaphor- 
ical contest, ‘strive the good strife, and 
(in it and through it) seize hold on eter- 
nal life,’ Winer, Gr. § 438. 2, p. 279; it 
is, however, very doubtful whether the 
remaining expressions, kaAeiy (as by the 
preco?), évém. moAX. papt. (the specta- 
tors? see Hammond in loc.), can fairly 
be regarded as parts of the continued 
metaphor. In els jv, as De Wette has 
observed, there would in fact be an impro- 
priety ; aimy. (én is not the contest or the 
arena into which the combatants were 
called, but has just been represented as 
the BeaBetov and éraSaov (Theophyl.), 
the object for which they were to con- 
tend. Similar, but more sustained allu- 
sions to the Olympic contests occur in 1 
Cor. ix. 24 sq., Phil. iii. 12. 
émtdaBod] ‘lay hold of ;’ only here and 


108 


TOAAGY papTUpav. 


TISTIMOTHY . 


Cuap. VI. 13. 


13 TIlapayyé&\w oot évwrriov Tov Oeod tov 


fwoyovowvtos Ta Travta Kal Xpiotod Incod tod paptupicavtos 


ver. 19 in St. Paul’s Epp., three times 
in Heb., and frequently in St. Luke: 
Grot. cites Prov. iv. 18, émAaBod euis 
modelas, wh apis. The change to the 
aor. imperf, must not be left unnoticed ; 
it was one act in the aydy; see the exx. 
in Winer, Gr. § 43. 4, p. 281. The usual 
sequence, first pres. imp. then aor. imper. 
(Schomann, Jseus, p. 235), is here ob- 
seryed: there are exceptions, however, 
e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 34. In the application 
of the verb there is no impropriety ; oid- 
vios, (wh (the epithet slightly emphatic ; 
see notes on ch. i. 5) is held out to us as 
the prize, the crown, which the Lord will 
give to those who are faithful unto the 
end; compare James i. 12, Rey. ii. 10. 
kal @mordynaoas] ‘and thou confess- 
edst,’ or ‘madest confes.,’ etc., not ‘hast 
made,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 125,— an inex- 
act translation for which there is here no 
idiomatic necessity, Kal has here its 
_simple copulative power, and subjoins 
to the foregoing words another and co- 
ordinate ground of encouragement and 
exhortation ; ‘thou wert called to eter- 
nal life, and thou madest a good profes- 
sion.” The extremely harsh construc- 
tion, kad (eis jv) dpmodrdynoas xk. T. A. 
(Leo, al.), is rightly rejected by De W. 
and later expositors. 

THY KaAhY 6podroy.] ‘the good confes- 
sion,— of faith’ (De W.), or,—‘of the 
Gospel’ (Scholef.) ; good, not with refer- 
ence to the courage of Timothy, but to 
its own import (Wiesing.). But made 
when? Possibly on the occasion of some 
persecution or trial to which Tim. was ex- 
posed, ds év Kwddvois duodoynoravtos Toy 
Xp., Theophyl. 1; more probably at his 
baptism, duoa. thy ev Bamriopati A€yel, 
G£cumenius, Theoph. 2, and apparently 
Chrys. ; but, perhaps, most probably, at 
his ordination, Neander, Planting, Vol. 
II. p..162 (Bohn) ; see chap. iv. 14, and 


compare i. 18. The general reference to 
a ‘confessio, non verbis concepta sed 
potius re ipsa edita ; neque id semel dun- 
taxat sed in toto ministerio’ (Calv., see 
also Theodoret), seems wholly precluded 
by the definite character of the language. 
The meaning ‘ oblation’ urged by J. John- 
son, Unbl. Sacr. 11.1, Vol. 1. p. 223(A.-C. 
Libr.), is an interpretation which éuodAo- 
yia cannot possibly bear in the N. T; 
see 2 Cor. ix. 18, Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 28. 
13. trapayyéAAw oot k.T.A.] The 
exhortation, as the Epistle draws to its 
conclusion, assumes a yet graver and 
more earnest tone. The apostle having 
reminded Timothy of the confession he 
made, évdém. moAA. wapt., DOW gives him 
charge, in the face of a more tremendous 
Presence, évaémiov Tod Ocod Tod wor. 
K.7.A., not to disgrace it by failing to 
keep the commandment which the Gos- 
pel imposes on the Christian. 
tod Cwoyovotvtos| ‘who keepeth 
alive;’ not perfectly synonymous (De 
W., Huth.) with (worn. the reading of 
the Rec.: the latter points to God as the 
‘auctor vite,’ the former as the ‘ conser- 
vator;’ compare Luke xvii. 33, Acts 
vii. 19, and especially Exod. i. 17, Judg. 
viii. 19, where the context clearly shows 
the proper meaning and force of the 
word. Independently of external evi- 
dence [ADFG opposed to KL], the read- 
ing of the text seems on internal grounds 
more fully appropriate ; Timothy is ex- 
horted to persist in his Christian course 
in the name of Him who extends His al- 
mighty protection over all things, and is 
not only the Creator, but the Preserver 
of all His creatures; comp. Matth. x 29 
sq. papTuphaavtTos 
k. 7. A.] ‘who witnessed, bore witness to, 
the good confession,’ It seems hy no 
means correct to regard maprupety tiv 
6poa. as simply synonymous with dmoa, 


Cuap. VI. 14. 


1 TIMOTHY. 


109 


: 
ért Ilovrtov TIinatov tiv Kadnv cporoyiav, 4 tnphoal ce TH 


évroAny aomidoy aveTriAnuTTov méxpl THS émripavelas ToD Kupiou 


Thy duor. (Leo, Huth. al.) ; the difference 
of persons and circumstances clearly 
caused the difference of the expressions, 
“testari confessionem erat Domini, confi- 
teri confessionem erat Timothei,’ Bengel. 
Our Lord attested by his sufferings and 
death (8? av érparrev, Gicum.) the truth 
of the éuoAoyia (‘ martyrio complevit et 
consignavit, Est.) ; Timothy only con- 
fesses that which his Master had thus au- 
thenticated. The use of wapr. with an 
accusative is not unusual (comp. Demos- 
thenes Steph. 1. p. 117, Siadneiy paptv- 
peiv), but papt. duodoyiay is an expres- 
sion confessedly somewhat anomalous : 
it must be observed, however, that the 
dpodroyta itself was not our Lord’s testi- 
mony before Caiaphas, Matth. xxvi. 64, 
Mark xiv. 62, Luke xxii. 69 (Stier, Red. 
Jes. Vol. vi. p. 386), nor that before Pi- 
late, John xvii. 36 (Leo, Huther), but, 
as in ver. 12 (see notes) the Christian 
confession generally, the good confession 
nar’ etoxnv. The expression thus con- 
sidered, seems less harsh. 

ém) Movriov, in accordance with the 
previous explanation of duodoyia, is thus” 
‘sub Pontio Pilato, Vulg., Est., De W., 
not ‘before Pontius Pilate,’ Syr., Ath., 
(Platt), Arm., Chrys, al..—a meaning 
perfectly grammatically admissible (see 
notes on ch. v. 19, Hermann Viger, No. 
394, comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 
153, ed. Burt.), but irreconcilable with 
the foregoing explanation of duodroyla. 
The usual interpretation of this clause, 
and of the whole verse, is certainly plau- 
sible, but it rests on the assumption that 
Mapt. Thy duod. is simply synonymous 
with duoroyety Thy duod., and it involves 
the necessity of giving 7 Kad} dmodr. a 
different meaning in the two verses. 
’ Surely, in spite of all that Huther has 
urged to the contrary, the duoroyla of 
Christ before Pilate must be regarded 


(with De Wette) a very inexact parallel 
to that of Timothy, whether at his bap- 
tism or ordination; and for any other 
confession, before a tribunal, etc., we 
have not the slightest evidence either in 
the Acts or in these two Epp. We re- 
tain then with Vulg., Clarom., Goth. 
(De Gabel.), and perhaps Coptic, the 
temporal and not /ocal meaning of ért. 
14. typjoat| Infin. dependent on 
the foregoing verb mapayyéAAw. The 
purport of the évroAy which Timothy is 
here urged to keep has been differently 
explained. It may be (a) all that Timo- 
thy has been enjoined to observe through- 
out the Epistle (Calvin, Beza) ; or, (0) 
the command just given by the apostle 
Tavita & ypadw, Theodoret (who, however, 
afterwards seems to regard it as = Sela 
di3acKaAlia), and perhaps Auth. Version ; 
or, most probably, (c) the commandment 
of Christ,— not specially the ‘ mandatum 
dilectionis,’ John xiii. 34, but generally 
the law of the Gospel (comp. 7 mapayye- 
Ala ch. i. 5), the Gospel viewed as a rule 
of life, Huth. ; see especially Titus ii. 12, 
where the context seems distinctly to fa- 
vor this interpretation. 
&omwtrdov avewtrAnumt ov] ‘spotless, 
irreproachable,’ v. e. so that it receive no 
stain and suffer no reproach; pre doy- 
Mdtwv everev unre Blov KnAidd Tia mpoc- 
tpwpduevoy, Chrys. [the usual dat. with 
mpoorp. e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 89, 859, 869, 
is omitted, but seems clearly éevroam] ; 
compare Theod. unity avaultns aradr- 
prov 7 Selq SidacKkaAla. As both these 
epithets are in the N. T. referred only to 
persons (ao. James i. 27, 1 Pet. i. 19, 
2 Pet. iii. 14; averia. 1 Tim. iii. 2, v.7), 
it seems very plausible to refer them to 
Timothy (Copt., Beza, al.) ; the construc- 
tion, however, seems so distinctly to fa- 
vor the more obvious connection with 
évroAhy (comp. ch, v. 22, 2 Cor. xi. 9, 


110 


IMO TE Y:. 


Cuap. VI. 15. 


npav Incot Xpustov, 15 iv Kaupois idiouw SelEer 6 waxdpios Kat 
I } / € si n 4 ‘\ / n 
povos Suvactns, 6 Bacieds TOV BacidevdvTov Kai Kupios tov 


James i. 27; [Clem. Rom.] Ep. 11. 8, 


Tnp. Tiv opparyida &omAov), and the an- 
cient Versions, Vulg., Clarom., Syriac 
(apparently), al., seem mainly so unani- 
mous, that the latter reference is to be 
preferred ; so De W., Huther. The .ob- 
jection that aveiA. can only be used with 
persons (Est., Heydenr.), is disposed of 
by De W., who compares Plato, Phileb. 
p- 43 c, Philo, de Opif. § 24, Vol. 1. p. 
17; add Polyb. Hist. x1v. 2. 14, avem)- 
Anmros mpoaipecis. The more grave ob- 
jection, that tnpeiy évtoAny means ‘to 
observe, not to conserve, a commandment’ 
(comp. Wiesing.}, may be diluted by 
observing that rnpety in such close con- 
nection with the epithets may lose the 
normal meaning it has when joined with 
évroAyy alone: it is not merely to keeping 
the command, but to keeping it spotless, 
that the attention of Timothy is directed. 
This is a case in which the opinion of 
the ancient interpreters should be allow- 
ed to have some weight. For the mean- 
ing of dvemia. see notes on ch. iii. 2. 

THs éewmipavetas| ‘the appearing,’ the 
visible manifestations of our Lord at His 
second advent; see 2 Tim. iy. 1, 8, Tit. 
ii. 13, and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chreét. 1v. 
21, Vol. 11. p. 230. This expression, 
which, as the context shows, can only be 
referred to Christ’s coming to judgment, 
not merely to the death of Timothy (uéxpu 
Tis e€0dov, Chrysostom, Theoph.), has 
been urged by De W. and others as a 
certain proof that St. Paul conceived the 
Advent as near; so even Reuss, Theol. 
111.4, Vol. 1. p. 308. It may perhaps 
be admitted that the sacred writers have 
used language in reference to their Lord’s 
return (comp. Hammond, on 2 Thess. ii, 
8), which seems to show that the long- 
ings of hope had almost become the con- 
victions of belief, yet it must also be ob- 
served that (as in the present case) this 


language is often qualified by expres- 
sions which show that they also felt and 
knew that that hour was not immediately 
to be looked for (2 Thess. ii. 2), but that 
the counsels of God, yea, and the machi- 
nations of Satan (2 Thess. ib.) must re- 
quire time for their development. 

15. katpois idios| ‘ His own seasons :? 
see notes on ch. ii. 6, and on Tit. i. 3. 
‘ Numerus pluralis observandus, brevita- 
tem temporum non valde coarctans,’ 
Bengel. SelEex] ‘shall 
display ;’ not a Hebraism for wovhoe or 
tedécet, Coray: the éem@dvem of our 
Lord is, as it were, a mighty onuetov 
(comp. John ii. 18) which God shall dis- 
play to men. 6 pakdpros| 
Compare notes on ch. i. 11. Chrysost. 
and Theophyl. regard the epithet as con- 
solatory, hinting at the absence of every 
element of 7d Aumnpdy 4 andes in the 
heavenly King: Theod. refers. it to the 
utperrov of His will. The context seems 
here rather to point to His exhaustless 
powers and perfections. 
udvos Svvadaorns| ‘only potentate ;’ 
it is scarcely necessary to say that pdvos 
involves no illusion to the polytheism of 
incipient Gnosticism (Conyb. and How- 
son, Baur, al), but is simply intended to 
enhance the substantive, by showing 
the uniqueness of the duvacreia. God 


o avy 
is the absolute duvdorns {aos 


y > y 
—_ C109 SS [validus solus ille], Syr- 


, 


jac ; to no one save to Him can that pre- 
dication be applied ; compare Eph. iii. 
20, Jude 25. Avvaorns occurs Luke i. 
52, Acts viii. 27, and in reference to God, 
2 Mace. iii. 24, xii. 15,’ xv. 4, 28. "On 
the dominion of God, see Pearson, Creed, 
Art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 51 (ed. Burt.), Char- 
nock, Attributes, x111. p. 638 (Bohn). 

Bactdred’s x. 7. A.] ‘ King of kings and 


Cuap. VI. 16, 17. 


1 EN OUD EY’: 


111 


, 16 e y, ” 1 r A , A > , 
KUPLEVOVTOD, 6 povos éxwv aSavaciay, Pas oikdv ampociton, 
/ % > r 
Ov Eidev ovdels aVSpa@rav ovdé ideiv SivaTaL, © TYmh Kal Kpartos 


7 SVT, 
QAL@VLOV, apn. . 
Charge the rich not to trust 
in riches, but in God, and 


to store up a good founda- 
tion. 


Lord of lords;’ so BactAeds Baciréwr, 
Rey. xvii. 14, xix. 16 (in reference to 
the Son; see Waterl. Def. 5, Vol. 1. p. 
326), and similarly. xdpios kupiwy, Deut. 
x. 17, Psalm cxxxv. (exxxvi.) 3,— both 
formulee added still more to heighten and 
illustrate the preceding title. Loesner 
cites from Philo, de Dec. Orac. p. 749 
[ Vol. 11. p. 187, ed. Mang.], a similar 
coacervation ; 6 ayévyntos kal &pSaptos 
kal aidios, ka) ovdevds emidens, kad months 
Tav BAwy, Kal evepyeTns, Kal Baoiheds THY 
BactAewy ral Ocbs Ocdv: comp. Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 670. 

16. 6 wdvos x. 7. A.| ‘who alone hath 
immortality ;? He in whom immortality 
essentially exists, and who enjoys it nei- 
ther derivatively nor by participation : 
obK ék SeAjuatos wAAov TavTny exet Ka- 
Sdmep of Aowwod wavtes GSdvatot, GAA ex 
Tis oikeias ovotas, Just. Mart. Quest. 61, 
ovolg addvatos ov petovoia, Theodoret, 
Dial. 111. p. 145; see Suicer, Thesaur. 
Vol. 1. p. 109, Petavius, Theol. Dogm. 
111. 4. 10, Vol. 1. p. 200. 

Gs olx@v| ‘dwelling in light unap- 
proachable. In this,sublime image God 
is represented, as it were, dwelling in an 
atmosphere of light, surrounded by glo- 
ries which no created nature may ever 
approach, no mortal eye may ever con- 
template ; see below. Somewhat similar 
images occur in the O. T.; compare 
Psalm ciii. (civ.) 2, avaBadrAduevos pas 
@s tuariov, Dan. ii. 22, kal 7d as per’ 
avrod éott. dv eldev 
ovdels x. 7-A.] ‘ Whom no man ever 
saw or can see:’ so Exodus xxxiii. 20, 
Deut. iy. 12, John i. 18, 1 John iv. 12, 
al. For reconciliation of these and sim- 
ilar declarations with texts such as 


1 Tots mrovcins ev TH viv aidv Tapay- 
yerre pon trbynrodpoveiv, nde nrmixévar érl 


Matth. v. 8, Heb. xii. 14, see the excel- 
lent lecture of Bp. Pearson, de Invisibili- 
tate Dei, Vol. 1. p. 118 sq. (ed. Chur- 
ton). The positions laid down by Pear- 
son are ‘Deus est invisibilis (1), oculo 
corporali per potentiam naturalem (2) 
oculo corporali in statu supernaturali (3) 
oculo intellectuali in statu naturali,’ and 
(4) ‘invisibilitas essentiz divine non 
tollit claram visionem intellectualem in 
statu supernaturali :’ Petay. Theol. Dogm. 
vir. 1. 1 sq. Vol. 1. p. 445 sq. 

17. rots mAouciots x. 7. A] * To 
the rich in this world;’ ‘multi divites 
Ephesi,’ Beng. °Ev 7@ viv aid: must be 
closely joined with rots mA., serving to 
make up with it one single idea; see 
notes on Eph. i. 15, where the rules for 
the omission of the article with the ap- 
pended noun are briefly stated ; see also 
Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p. 195, and 
Winer, (rr. § 20. 2, p. 123. The clause 
is perhaps added to suggest the contrast 
between the riches in this world and the 
true riches in the world to come ; KaA@s 
elwev Ev T@ viv aidv, ciot yap Kal &AAt 
The 
expression appears to have a Hebraistic 
cast (od>4y “sw ); see examples in 
Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 883. For a 
powerful sermon on this and the two fol- 
lowing verses, see Bp. Hall, Serm. vit. 
Vol. v. p. 102 sq. (Oxf. 1837). 
HaAmeikévat] ‘to set hopes, ‘to have 
hoped and continued to hope ;’ see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 41. 4. a, p. 315, Green, Gr. p. 
21. On the construction of éAmi¢w with 
émi, see notes on ch. iy. 10. The 
attribute 7 (@vt1, added to @ea, in Rec., 
though fairly supported |DEKL; al.; 
Syriac (both), Clarom., al.; see Tisch.], 


Trova ev TH weAAovtTt, Chrys. 


112 


I PIMOT RY: 


Cuap. VI. 18,19. 


7 %: / > 2 3 lal fol A / con 
TAOUTOV GdnACTHTL, GAN é€v TH OeG 7H TapéxovTe Hulv wavta 


/ >’ > 4 
TAOVTLWS ELS ATTOAAVOLD, 


18 GyaXoepyciv, TAOuTELY ev Epyols Ka- 
Rois, EvLETAOOTOUS ElvaL, KOLVWVLKOUS, 


19 amoSnoavpifovtas éav- 


Tois Seuédvov Kadov eis TO pédAov, Wa éTTiNaGBwvtar THs dvT@s 


Swijs. 


does not seem genuine, but is perhaps 
only a reminiscence of ch. iv. 10. 
mrovTOV GdNHAOTHTEI ‘the uncertain- 
ty of riches;’ an expression studiedly 
more forcible than ém) 7G mAovTw 7G G54- 
Aw; compare Rom. vi. 4. The distine- 
tion between such expressions and 7 
aAfSe Tod evaryyed. Gal. ii. 5, 14, though 
denied by Fritz., Rom. Vol. 1. p. 368, is 
satisfactorily maintained by Winer, Gr. 
§ 34. 3, p. 211. In such cases the ex- 
pression has a rhetorical coloring. 

In the following words, instead of év 7G 
@cg, Lachm. reads ém tH ©. with AD' 
FG; al. (15); Orig. (mss.), Chrysost., 
Theoph. The external authority is of 
weight, but the probability of a confor- 
mation of the second clause to the first, 
and St. Paul’s known love for preposi- 
tional variation, are important arguments 
in favor of the text, which is supported 
by D®KL; great majority of mss. ; Ori- 
gen, Theodoret, Dam., al., and rightly 
adopted by the majority of recent edi- 
tors. eis amédrAavoty] ‘for 
enjoyment,’ ‘to enjoy, not to place our 
heart and hopes in,’ comp. ch. iv. 3, eis 
petdAnyw. ‘Observa autem tacitam 
esse antithesin quum predicat Deum 
omnibus affatim dare. Sensus enim est, 
etiamsi plena rerum omnium copia abun- 
damus, nos tamen nihil habere nisi ex 
sol Dei benedictione,’ Calvin. 

18. &yaSoepyeiv] ‘that they do 
good,’ ‘ show kindness ;’ infin. dependent 
on maparyyeAAe, enjoining on the positive 
side the use which the rich are to make 
of their riches. The open form ayasoepy. 
only occurs here ; the contracted ayasoup. 
in Acts xiv. 17. The distinction of Ben- 
gel between the adjectives involved in 


this and the following clause is scarcely 
exact, ‘dyads infert simul notionem 
beatitudinis (Mark x. 18, not.) kaAdbs. con- 
notat pulchritudinem.’ The latter word 
is correctly defined, see Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 324; the former, as its probable deriva- 
tion (-ya, cogn. with xa, Donalds. 2b. § 
323, compare Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 
Il. p. 64) seems to suggest, marks rather 
the idea of ‘ kindness, assistance ;) comp. 
notes on Gal. v. 22. 

edvmeTtad. Kotvwy.| ‘free in distributing, 
ready to communicate ;’ scarcely ‘ready 
to distribute,’ Auth. Ver. (comp. Syr.), 
as this seems rather to imply the quali- 
tative termination -xos: on the passive 
termination -tos (here used with some 
degree of laxity), see Donaldson, Cratyl. 
§ 255. Kowwvikds is not duiAntikds, mpo- 
onvns, Chrys. and the Greek expositors 
(‘facilis convictus,’ Beza), but, as the 
context clearly shows, ‘ready to impart 
to others,’ see Gal. vi.6. Both adjectives 
are Gr. Aeyou. in the N. T. For a prac- 
tical sermon on this and the preceding 
verses, see Beveridge, Sermon cxxvil. 
Vol. v. p. 426 (A.-C. Libr. 

19. adroSnoavpl(ovras] ‘ laying 
up in store,’ Auth. Ver. There is no ne- 
cessity for departing from the regular 
meaning of the word; the rich are ex- 
horted to take from (amd) their own plen- 
ty, and by devoting it to the service of 
God and the relief of the poor to actually 
treasure it up as a good foundation for 
the future: in the words of Beveridge, 
‘their estates will not die with them, but 
they will have joy and comfort of them 
in the other world, and haye cause to 
bless God for them to all eternity,’ Serm. 
cxxvil. Vol. rv. p. 439 (A.-C. Libr.). 


Cuap. VI. 20. 1 * BTM 


Keep thy deposit, and avoid 
all false knowledge. 


The preposition amd does not exactly 
mean ‘seorsum,’ ‘in longinquum ’ (Ben- 
gel), but seems to point to the source 
from which, and the process by which 
(‘ seponendo thesaurum colligere,’ Winer, 
de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 11), they are to 
make their Sncavpovs: compare Diodor. 
Sic. Bibl. v. 75, moAAovs Tv ek Tis Ord- 
pas Kapta@y amosnoaupicersat. 

Sepéearov Kardy| ‘a good foundation ; 
Tov TAOUTOU Thy KTHOW eKdAETEV USnAOV, 
Tov BE wedAbvTay ayaSay Thy amdrAavow 
SeueAov KékAnkev’ Gklvnta yap ekeiva 
kal &tpenta, Theodoret. @¢epédsos, it 
need scarcely be said, is not here used 
for Séua (compare Tobit iv. 9), nor as 
equivalent in meaning to cvvAjnn (Ham- 
mond), but retains its usual and proper 
meaning; a good foundation (contrast 
&dnAdTns TAOUTOV) is, aS it Were, a pos- 
session which the rich are to store up for 
themselves ; compare ch. iil. 13, Badydy 
é€auTois Kaddy TepimotodyvTa. There is 
not here, as Wiesinger remarks, any 
confusion, but only a brevity of expres- 
sion which might have been more fully, 
but less forcibly expressed by amroSnaaup. 
TAOUTOY KaA@y epywy ws Jeuedrov (Mol- 
ler) ; the rich out of their riches are to 
lay up a treasure; this treasure is to be 
a MeueAtos kadds on which they may rest 
in order to lay hold on ris dvtws (wijs. 
The form SeuéAtos is properly an adj. 
(compare Arist. Aves, 1137, SewedAtous 
Aigous), but is commonly used in later 
writers as a subst., e.g. Polyb. List. 1. 
40.9, comp. Thom. M. s. y. 

Tis bvtws Cwi7s] ‘the true life,’ ‘ that 
which is truly life ;’‘ celle qui mérite seule 
ce nom, parceque la perspective de la 
mort ne jette plus d’ombre sur ses jours,’ 
Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 22, Vol. 11. p. 
252: that life in Christ (2 Timoth. i. 1) 
which begins indeed here but is perfected 
hereafter ; 7d Kuplws Civ mapa udvy tvy- 
xdver 7G Ocs, Origen, in Joann. 11. 11, 


OTHY. 113 


20°72 TiywoSee, tHv trapaSjxny pvrator, 


Vol. rv. p. 71 (ed. Bened.), see notes on 
ch. iv. 8. On the meaning of (wn, see 
Trench, Synon. § 27, and the deeper and 
more comprehensive treatise of Olshau- 
sen, Opuscula, p. 187 sq. The reading 
aiwviou [Rec. with DE*KL] is rejected 
even by Scholz, and has every appear- 
ance of being a gloss. 

20.@ TipdSec! The earnest and 
individualizing address is a suitable pre- 
face to the concluding paragraph, which, 
as in 2 Cor. xiii. 11, al., contains the 
sum and substance of the Ep., and brings 
again into view the salient points of the 
apostle’s previous warnings and exhor- 
tations. thy wapadshKer| ‘the de- 
posit ;’ only (a) here, and (8) 2 Tim. i. 
12, duvards eorw Thy TapadhKny wou du- 
Acta, and (y) 2 Tim. i. 14, thy koarhy 
mapasheny pvdatoy did Tvedu. ayiov. In 
these three passages the exact reference 
of mapadsnxn is somewhat doubtful. It 
seems highly probable that the meaning 
in all three passages will be fundamentally 
the same, but it is not necessary to ham- 
per ourselves with the assumption that 
in all three passages it is exactly the 
same, the unnecessary assumption which 
interferes with De Wette’s otherwise able 
analysis. What is this approximately 
common meaning? Clearly not either 
‘his soul,’ 1 Pet. iv. 19, Beng. on (8g), 
or his ‘ soul’s salvation,’ for this interpre- 
tation, though plausible in (8), would by 
no means be suitable either in (a) or (y); 
nor again Thy xdpw Tod Tvevuaros, The- 
odoret, A. J., for this would in effect in- 
troduce a tautology in (vy). Not improb- 
ably, as De W., Huther, al., ‘ the minis- 
terial office,’ z.e. ‘the apostolic office’ 
in (a), ‘ the office of an evangelist’ in (8) 
and (y); there is, however, this objec- 
tion, that though not unsuitable in (8) it 
does not either here or in (y) present any 
direct opposition to what follows, BeBj- 
Aous Kevopwrias kal avr. KT. A. On 

15 


114 


EXT PETOMEVOS 


the whole then, the gloss of Chrysost. on 
(8), 7 miorts, Td KNpvywa (comp. Theoph. 
I, @cum.1.), or rather, more generally, 
‘the doctrine delivered (to Timothy) to 
preach,’ ‘ Catholice fidei talentum,’ Vin- 
cent. Lirin. (Common. cap. 22, ed. Oxf. 
1841), seems best to preserve the opposi- 
tion here and to harmonize with the con- 
text in (7), while with a slight expansion 
it may also be applied to (8); see notes 
in loc. Compare1 Tim.i.18 and 2 Tim. 
ii. 2, both of which, especially the for- 
mer, seem satisfactorily to confirm this 
interpretation. On rapaSjnn and mapa- 
karadnkn (Rec.,— but with most insuffi- 
cient authority), the latter of which is 
apparently the more idiomatic form, see 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 312, and compare the 
numerous examples in Wetstein zn loc. 
éxtpemdomevos] ‘avoiding, Authoriz. 
Ver., ‘devitans,’ Vulg., Clarom:; the 
middle voice, especially with an accus. 
objecti, being sometimes suitably render- 
ed by a word of different meaning to that 
conveyed by the act. voice: comp. Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 38. 2, p. 226. 

Kkevopwrvias| ‘babblings,’ ‘ empty-talk- 
ings,’ ‘ vanos sine mente sonos,’ Raphel, 
—only here and 2 Timothy ii. 16, and 
scarcely different in meaning from a- 
taoroyla, 1 Tim. i. 6; contrast James 
iv. 3, and compare Deyling, Obs. Vol. 
Iv. 2, p. 642. On BeBydovs (which as 
the omission of the article shows belongs 
also to avriS¢oe1s) and the prefixed arti- 
cle, comp. notes on ch. iv. 7. 
&uvTiSeacets k.T.A.| ‘oppositions of 
the falsely-named Knowledge,‘ of the Know- 
ledge which falsely arrogates to itself 
that name,’ ‘non enim vera scientia esse 
potest que veritati contraria est,’ Est. 


000 w« 


The exact meaning of ay7i8., jAaon 


[contorsiones, oppositiones] Syr., it is 
somewhat difficult to ascertain. Baur 
(Pastoralbr. p. 26 sq.), for obvious rea- 


1 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. VI. 20, 21. 


tas BeByrovs Kevohwrias Kal avTidéces Tis 


sons, presses the special allusion to the 
Marcionite oppositions between the law 
and the Gospel (see Tertull. Marc. 1.19), 
but has been ably answered by Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 304. Chrysostom and The- 
ophyl. (compare Gicum.) refer it to per- 
sonal controversies and to objections 
against the Gospel: ais ov5¢ amoxpivec- 
Sat xp ; this, however, is scarcely suffi- 
ciently general. The language might be 
thought at first sight to point to some- © 
thing specific (compare Huther) ; when, 
however, we observe that cevopwvlas and 
ayTiWéoes are under the vinculum of a 
single article, it seems difficult to main- 
tain a more definite meaning in the latter 
word than the former. These avriSécets, 
then, are generally the positions and 
teachings of the false-knowledge which 
arrayed themselves against the doctrine 
committed to Timothy,—ras evavtias 
Séoeis, Coray ; so even De Wette. 

The use of the peculiar term ‘yv@ots 
seems to show that it was becoming the 
appellation of that false and addititious 
teaching which, taking its rise from a 
Jewish or Cabbalistic philosophy (Col. 
ii, 8), already bore within it the seeds of 
subsequent heresies, and was preparing 
the way for the definite gnosticism of a 
later century: eompare Chrysost. and 
especially Theod. zn loc., and see notes 
on ch. i. 4, 

21. émayyedAAdmevor| ‘making a 
profession of;’ ‘ pre se ferentes,’ Beza ; 
see notes on chap. ii. 10. 
haotdxnaar| ‘missed their aim ;’ Wie- 
singer here urges most fairly that it is 
perfectly incredible that any forger in the 
second century should have applied so 
mild an expression to followers of the 
Marcionite Gnosis. On the acroxew see 
notes on ch. i. 6, and for the use of zrepi, 
see notes on ch. i. 19. meTa god| 
So Tisch. with DEKL ; nearly all mss. ; 
majority of Vy., and many Ff. The 


Cuapr. VI. 21. 


Yevdwvtpou yvocews, 
TisTW HoTOXnTADV. 


Benediction. 


plural Suadv is adopted by Lachm. with 
AFG; 17; Boern., Copt., al.,—but is 
very probably a correction derived from 
2 Tim. v. 22, or Tit. iii. 15; at any rate, 
even if duéy be retained, no stress can 
safely be laid on the plural as implying 


ee EVE OIE ¥.. 


115 


21 fy Tiwes e€mrayyeAAGMEvoL TrEept THY 
1) y Lie fee 


‘H ydpus peta cod. 


Church ag well as to Timothy. All that 
could be said would be that St. Paul 
sent his benediction to the Church in and 
with that to its Bishop. Huther some- 
what singularly maintains god in his crit- 
ical notes, and, as it would seem, Suav 


that the Epistle was addressed to the in his commentary. 


Note on 1 Tim. iii. 16. 


The results of my examination of the Cod. Alex. may be thus briefly stated. On 
inspecting the dispttted word there appeared (a) a coarse line over, and a rude dot 
within the O, in black ink ; (b) a faint line across O in ink of the same color as the 
adjacent letters. It was clear that (a) had no claim on attention, except as being 
possibly a rude retouching of (b): the latter demanded careful examination. After 
inspection with a strong lens it seemed more than probable that Wetstein’s opinion 
(Prolegom. Vol. 1. p. 22) was correct. Careful measurement showed that the first « 
of evo€Beav, ch. vi. 3, on the other side of the page, was exactly opposite, the cir- 
cular portion of the two letters nearly entirely coinciding, and the thickened ex- 
tremity of the sagitta of e« being behind what had seemed a ragged portion of the 
left-hand inner edge of O. It remained only to prove the identity of this sagitta 
with the seeming line across the O. This with the kind assistance of Mr. Hamilton, 
of the Brit. Museum, was thus effected. While one of us held up the page to the 
light and viewed the O through the lens, the other brought the point of an instru- 
ment (without of course touching the MS.) so near to the extremity of the sagitta of 
the «as to make a point @¢f shade visible to the observer on the other side. When 
the point of the instrument was drawn over the sagitta of the ¢, the point of shade 
was seen to exactly trace out the suspected diameter of the O. It would thus seem cer- 
tain that (6) is no part of O, and that the reading of A is ds. 


He Nea (de 
i 


| } if ad 
P * anit nr os a i 
b ( aS heat VT see ie ig My 
re ules Sal Mesg.0 if 
“p f « si 
\ a eid iy = 





THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


- cian ail 1s 
ish: 


qa. Bon Sika! 


% 
a 





INTRODUCTION. 


Tuts Second Epistle to his faithful friend and follower was written by the 
apostle during his second imprisonment at Rome (see notes on ch. iv. 12, and 
comp. ch. i. 18), and, as the inspired writer’s own expressions fully justify 
our asserting (chap. iv. 6), but a very short time before his martyrdom, and 
in the interval between the ‘actio prima’ (see notes on ch. iv. 16) and its 
mournful issue ; comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 11. 22. 

It would thus have been written about the year A.D. 67 or perhaps A. D. 
68, i.e. the last but one, or last year of the reign of Nero, which tradition 
(Euseb. Chron. ann. 70 A. p.; Jerome, Catal. Script. cap. 5, p. 35, ed. Fabri- 
cius), apparently with some degree of plausibility, fixes upon as the period of 
the apostle’s martyrdom; see Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 
596, note (ed. 2), and compare Pearson, Annal. Paul. Vol. 1. p. 396 (ed. 
Churton). 

Where Timothy was at this time cannot very readily be decided, as some 
references in the Epistle (ch. i. 15 sq. compared with iv. 19, ch. ii. 17, al.) 
seem to harmonize with the not unnatural supposition that he was at Ephe- 
sus, while others (ch. iv. 12, 20) have been thought to imply the contrary ; 
comp. notes on ch. iv. 12. On the whole the arguments derived from the 
generally similar terms in which the present tenets (comp. ii. 16 with 1 Tim. 
vi. 20, and ch. ii. 23 with 1 Tim. vi. 4), future developments (comp. ch. iii. 
1, 5 with 1 Tim. iv. 1 sq.), and even names (comp. ch. ii. 17 with 1 Tim. i. 
20) of the false teachers are characterized in the two Epistles, seem to out- 
weigh those deduced from the topographical notices, and to render it slightly 
more probable that, at the time when the Second Epistle was written, Timo- 
thy was conceived by the apostle to be at the scene of his appointed labors 
(1 Tim. i. 3), and as either actually at Ephesus or visiting some of the de- 
pendant churches in its immediate neighborhood: see Conybeare and How- 
son, St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 582, note (ed. 2). 

The apostle’s principal purpose in writing the Epistle was to nerve and 
sustain Timothy amid the now deepening trials and persecutions of the 


120 INTRODUCTION. 


Church from without (ch. i. 8, ii. 3, 12, ili. 12, iv. 5), and to prepare and 
forewarn him against the still sadder trials from threatening heresies and 
apostasies from within (ch. iii. 1 sq.). The secondary purpose was the ear- 
nest desire of the apostle, forlorn as he then was (ch. iv. 16), and deserted as 
he was by all save the faithful Luke (ch. iv.11), to see once more his true 
son in the faith (ch. iv. 9, 21), and to sustain him not by his written words 
only, but by the practical teaching of his personal example. In no Epistle 
does the true, loving, undaunted, and trustful heart of the great apostle speak 
in more consolatory yet more moving accents: in no portion of his writings 
is there a loftier tone of Christian courage than that which pervades these, 
so to speak, dying words; nowhere a holier rapture than that with which 
the reward and crown of faithful labor is contemplated as now exceeding nigh 
at hand. 

The question of the genuineness and authenticity stands in connection 
with that of the First Epistle. This only may be added, that if the general 
tone of this Epistle tends to make us feel convinced that it could have been 
written by no hand save that of St. Paul, its perfect identity of language with 
that of the First Epistle and the Epistle to Titus involves a further evidence 
of the genuineness and authenticity of those Epistles which it thus resembles, 
and with which it stands thus closely connected. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


CHAPTER I. 


Apostolic address and salu- 
tation. 


ev Xpiot@ ‘Inaod, 


AYAOZX aréatoros Xpictod *Incod dia 
Yeranuatos Oeod cat érayyerlav Cwhs tis 
2 TipodSéw ayarnte@ téxv@. apis, édeos, €i- 


pyvn amo Ocod matpos kat Xpictod 'Incod tod Kupiov iyav. 


I bear thee ever in my 
memory, and call to mind 
the faith that is in thee and 
thy family. Stir up thy 
sift. 


1. 51a DeAHuaTOS Oeod| ‘through 
the will of God :’‘apostolatum suum vo- 
luntati et electioni Dei adscribit, non suis 
meritis,’ Est.; so 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, 
Eph. i. 1 (where see notes), Col.i.1. In 
the former Epistle the apostle terms him- 
self ardor. X. 71. kar’ emitayhy Ocod, per- 
haps thus slightly enhancing the author- 
ity of his commission, see notes; here, 
possibly on account of the following kata, 
he reverts to his usual formula. 
kar émayyeAtav must be joined, as 
the omission of the article clearly decides, 
not with dia SeAjuaros, but with amrdcro- 
Aos (comp. Tit.i. 1) ; the prep. xara de- 
noting the object and intention of the ap- 
pointment, ‘to further, to make known 
the promise of eternal life,’ améaroAdy 
Me mpocBdAdeTo 6 Seomdrys Oeds .....d0T€ 
Me Thy emayyeAdetoay aiwviov why Tots 
avspéros enpvéat, Theodoret, icumen.; 
see Tit. i. 1, kata miorw, and compare 


16 


3 , 7 lal Lal e f > \ 
Xapw €yo TO Oe@, @ AaTpEevw aro Tpo- 
A e 
yovev év KaSapa ovvedjce, ws adiddevTrTov 
fal al f 
exw THY Tept cod prelav ev Tails Senceciv pov 


Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 358, and notes on 
1 Tim. vi. 3. On the expression émayyea. 
(w7s, and the nature of the genitival re- 
lation, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 8. 

2. ayannte TéeKve| ‘(my) beloved 
child :’ so in 1 Cor. iv. 17, but in 1 Tim. 
i 2, and Tit. i. 4, yunoiw tékvw; ‘illud 
quidem (yvyo.) ad Timothei commenda- 
tionem et laudem pertinet; hoc vero 
Pauli in illum benevolentiam et charita- 
tem declarat, quod ipsum tamen, ut mo- 
net Chrysost., in ejus laudem recidit,’ 
Justiniani. It is strange indeed in Mack 
(comp. Alf.) here to find an insinuation 
that Timothy did not now deserve the 
former title. Scarcely less precarious is 
it (with Alf.) to assert that there is more 
of love and less of confidence in this 
Epistle ; see ver. 5. On the construction 
see notes on 1 Tim. i. 2. 
xdpis, €rAcos «.7.A.] See notes on 
Eph. i. 2; compare also on Gal. i. 3, and 


122 


VUKTOS Kal nuépas, 


on 1 Tim.i. 2. On the scriptural mean- 
ing of xapis see the brief but satisfactory 
observations of Waterland, Kuch. ch. x. 
Vol. 1v. p. 666 sq. 

3. xdpiv exo] ‘I give thanks;’ 
more commonly ebxapicTd, but see 1 
Tim. i. 12, and Philem. 7 (Tisch.). The 
construction of this verse is not perfectly 
clear. The usual connection xdpw exw 
@s «.T.A., in which ws is taken for Ort 
(Vulg., Chrys.), or guoniam (Leo), inde- 
pendently of its exegetical difticulties,— 
for surely neither the prayers themselves, 
nor the repeated mention of Timothy in 
them (Leo), could form a sufficient rea- 
son for the apostle’s returning thanks to 
God,— is open to the grammatical objec- 
tions that és could scarcely thus be used 
for 67x (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 765, 
comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph, Vol. 11. p. 
1002), and that the causal sense is not 
found in St. Paul's Epistles (see Meyer 
on Gal. vi. 10). Less tenable is the mo- 
dal (‘how unceasing,’ Alf.), and still less 
so is the temporal meaning, ‘ quoties tui 
recordor,’ Calvin, Conyb. (comp. Klotz, 
Vol. 11. p. 759), and least of all so the 
adverbial meaning assigned by Mack, 
‘recht unablassig.’ In spite then of 
the number of intervening words (De 
W.), it seems most correct, as well as 
most simple, to retain the usual meaning 
of as (‘as,’ Germ. ‘da,’ scil. ‘as it hap- 
pens I have’), to refer ydpw éxw to 
bréuv. AaBdy, ver. 5, and to regard ws 
a5idA. k.7.A. as marking the state of 
feelings, the mental circumstances, as it 
were, under which the apostle expresses 
his thanks; ‘I thank God....as thou axt 
ever uppermost in my thoughts and 
prayers...when thus put in remembrance,’ 
etc. This seems also best to harmonize 
with the position of the tertiary predicate, 
GdidAeumrov ; see below. Under any cir- 
cumstances, it seems impossible with 
Coray to suppose an ellipsis of kal uap- 


2) MO At Ary... 


Cuapr. I. 8, 4. 


4 érimosa@v oe ideiv, peuvnuevos cov TOV 


tvpouat before ws; Rom. i. 9 is very dif- 
ferent. On @s, compare notes on Gal. 
vi. 10. ard tpoyovar] 


'< from (my) forefathers,’ ‘ with the feelings 


and principles inherited and derived from 
them,’—not ‘as my fathers have done 
before me,’ Waterland, Serm. 111. Vol. 
v. p. 454; see Winer, Gr. § 51. b, p. 
333. These were not remote (Hamm.), 
but more immediate (compare 1 Tim. v. 
4) progenitors, from whom the apostle 
had received that fundamental religious 
knowledge which was common both to 
Judaism and Christianity ; comp. Acts 
xxii. 3, xxiv. 14, ev kadapa 
ovve.d.| ‘ina pure conscience ;’ as the 
sort of spiritual sphere in which the Aa- 
tpeta was offered; see Winer, Gr. § 48. 
a, p. 346. On kad. cvverd. see notes on 1 
Hiri les 
‘as unceasing, unintermitted, is,’ ete., not 
‘unintermitted as is,’ etc., Peile; the 
tertiary predicate must not be obscured: ’ 
in translation: see Donalds. Cratyl. § 
301, ib. Gr. Gr. § 489 sq. 

vuxTos kal Huepas must not be . 
joined with éemmoda@y oe ideiy (Matth.), 
and still less, on account of the absence 
of the article, with dejcecivy wou (Syr.), 
but with dia. 2xw, which these words 
alike explain and enhance. On the ex- 
pression see notes on 1 Tim. y. 5. 

‘longing ;’ part. de- 
pendant on éyw pyrelav, expressing the 
feeling that existed previously to, or con- 
temporaneous with that action (compare 
Jelf, Gr. § 685), and connected with the 
final clause ya tAnpw86. The following 


@s adidAELTTOY| 


4. émimosa@r| 


participial clause, peuynuévos k. 7. A. 
(‘memor tuarum lachrymarum,’ Vulg., 
Clarom.), does not refer to xdpi exw, as 
the meaning of fva would thus be wholly 
obscured, but further illustrates and ex- 
plains érimodsév, to. which it is append- 
ed with a faint causal force ; ‘longing to 
see thee, in remembrance of (as I remem- , 


Cuap. I. 5. 


2 TIMOTHY. 123 


~ 


PS 7 ig n ~ SO 5 ¢€ Ei \ a > 4A 

axptov, wa xapas TANPwSa, *° UTopynow AaB@v Tis ev col 

> / / 4 2 4 fal > a lA 

avuTokpitou Triatews, HTIs ev@Knoev TPaTov ev TH pwadupn cov 
\ A if > f / \ A \ 

Awidi Kai TH pntpi cov Evvixn, rérevowar 5€ bt Kat év coi. 


5. AaBév] So Lachm. with ACFG; al. 3. Tisch. reads AduBavov with DEJK: 
nearly all mss.; Chrys., Theod., al. The latter, however, seems to have arisen 
from a conformation to the pres. émimodar. 


ber) thy tears, in order that I may, ete. 
The én) in emmoday might at first sight 
seem to be intensive,— ‘ vehementer op- 
tans,’ Just., ‘greatly desiring,’ Auth. 
Version, —both here and in Rom. i. 11, 
1 Thess. iii. 6. As, however, the simple 
form 7odéw is not used in the N. T., and 
as this intensive force cannot by any 
means be certainly substantiated in other 
authors, ém will be more correctly taken 
as marking the direction (Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s. vy. émi, €, b.) of the mé30s, comp. 
Psalm xli. 2, émimode? emi tas mnyds : 
see esp. the good note of Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 1. p. 31. ; 

gov tev Sakpiwy| ‘the tears which 
thou sheddest,’— probably at parting ; ¢i- 
Kos Wy avToy amooxiCouevoy KAatew Kar 
OdvpeoIa1 MaAAov 7) Tadloy TOD uacTOU Kab 
Co- 
ray compares the case of the mpeaBurepor 
at Ephesus, Acts xx. 37; sce also Wie- 
seler, Chronol. p. 463. 


5. brouvynoivy AaBesy| ‘being put 
BL 


THs TITAS atoomwuevov, Chrysost. 


in remembrance ;’ literally, ‘having re- 
ceived reminding,’ not, with a neglect of 
tense, ‘dum in mem. revoco,’ Leo (who 
reads AaBwv). The assertion of Bengel, 
founded on the distinction of Ammonius 


? 


(dvduvnots Otay Tis ASN eis myhuny TOY 
mapeAddytwy. trou. 5 Stay bp éErépov 
eis TOUTO mpuaxdn, p. 16, ed. Valck ), that 
St. Paul might have been reminded of 
Timothy’s faith by some ‘ externa occa- 
sio aut nuncius,’ is not to be dismissed 
with Huther’s summary ‘ unbegrundet ; ’ 
it is plausible, harmonizes with the tense, 
and lexically considered, is very satisfac- 
tory; compare 2 Pet. i. 13, ili. 1, the 


only other passages in the N. T. where 
the word occurs. The intrans. meaning 
is fully detensible (uvhunv, kad idiwrices 
cimety Oréuvnow, Eustath. lll. xxii. p. 
1440, see also Polyb. Hist. 1.1. 2, 111. 31. 
6), and 2 Pet. i. 9, AnSnv AaBay, is cer- 
tainly analogous, still, on the whole the 
transitive meaning seems _ preferable ; 
compare Eph. i. 15, where the construc- 
tion is similar. TIS €V 
gol x.7.A.] ‘the unfeigned faith that is 
(not ‘was,’ Alf.) zn thee,’— more exactly, 
‘que est in te non ficta,’? Vulg., similar 
Gothic; object which called forth the 
apostle’s thankfulness. 
see notes on 1 Tim. i. 5. 
mpa@tov] ‘first;’ not for tb mpadtov, 
nor again for mpérepoy (‘prius quam in 
te,’ Leo), but simply ‘ first :’ the indwel- 
ling of faith in Timothy’s family first 
began in the case of Lois. The relative 
fits here seems used, not as often, with 
an explanatory; but with a specifying, 
and, what may be termed, a differentiat- 
ing force,—‘ this particular avumékp. tic- 
tts, no other, dwelt first,’ ete. ; see notes 
on Gal. iv. 24, and comp Jelf, Gr. § 816. 
waduun| ‘grandmother. The Atticists 
condemn this form, the correct expres> 
sion being th3n (not tits), Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 134, Thom. Mag. s. v. tidn. 
The mother, Eunice, (possibly the daugh- 
ter of Lois,)is alluded to, Acts xvi. 1. 
kal év col] Scil~évoxe?; comp. Arm., 
‘etin te est.’ De Wette seems inclined 
to favor the supplement of Grot., al., 
évoixhoet, on the hypothesis that Timo- 
thy had become weak in faith (ver. 13, 
chap. iii, 14),—an hypothesis, which 


On avurdxpitos, 


124 


TIMOTHY. 


Cuapr. I. 6.: 


Cae. | a > 4 > A \ , r 
6 Av iv aitiay avapipyncKw ce avalwrupely TO Xapiopa TOV 


though advocated by Alf. throughout 
this Epistle, is certainly precarious, and, 
it seems reasonable to add, improbable. 
The transition to exhortation does not 
at all favor such a supposition ; ‘imo quo 
certius Paulus de Timothei fide persua- 
sus erat, eo majorem habebat causam 
adhortandi ut aleret 7d xdpicya Tov Ocod, 
quo gauderet,’ Leo. 

6. 30 Hv aitiav| ‘For which cause,’ 
sc. 5107 oldd oe dvuTdxpitov éxovTa TicTty, 
Theophyl.; taira wept cov memecouevos 
mapakarA@ x. T.A., Theod., comp. notes 
on yer. 12: as the apostle knew that this 
faith was in Timothy, he reminds him 
(‘in memoriam redigit,’ Just., compare 
1 Cor. iv. 17) toexhibit it in action. It 
is by no means improbable that this avd- 
yvnois was suggested by a knowledge of 
the grief, and possible despondency, into 
which Timothy might have sunk at the 
absence, trials, and imprisonment of his 
spiritual father in the faith ; dpa mas deik- 
yuo avtoy ev adupuia dvTa TOAAT, TOS ev 
xatnoela, Chrys. This we may reasona- 
bly assume, but to believe that this ‘ dear 
child’ of the apostle was showing signs of 
‘backwardness and timidity’ (Alf., Prol. 
p- 100) in his ministerial work, needs far 
more proof than has yet been adduced. 
avaCwmupertr| ‘to kindle up,’ ael Caoav 
Kal axudCovoay épyda¢erda:, Theophyl., 


= 2% 
mupoevev, Theodoret, a) [ut exci- 


tes] Syr.; see Suicer,. Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 
1. p. 265. There is no lexical necessity 
for pressing the meaning of this word, 
‘sopitos ignes suscitare,’ Grot., al. In- 
deed it may be further said that dva(w- 
mupe (an amagt Aceydu. in the N. T.) is 
not here necessarily ‘vesuscitare, Vulg., 
‘ wieder anfachen, ”’ Huth., but rather ‘ ex- 
suscitare,’ Beza, ‘anzufachen,’ De W.,— 
the force of avé being up, upwurds, e. 9. 
avamreiv, dvamvely, aveyeipel k.T.A.; See 


Win., de Verb. Comp. 111. p. 1, note, Rost 


u. Palm, Lex. s. v. avd, B.1; comp. Plu- 
tarch, Pomp. 41, at&is dvalwrupodyta 
kal mapacKkevaduevov. The simple form 
(wrupeiy is ‘ to kindle to flame’ (robs ay- 
Spakas gmucav, Suidas), the compound 
avaCwrupeiv is either (a) to ‘rekindle,’ 
and in a metaphorical sense ‘revivify,’ 
Joseph. Antig. vi1t. 8. 5, dvaCwmupioa 
Thy Sekidy (Jeroboam’s hand), compare 
Plato, Charm. 156 c, aveSappnoad te — 
kal aveCwrupotuny ; or (b) as here, ‘to 
kindle up’ (aveyetpat, ex (wrupijoa,Suid.), 
‘to fan into a flame,’ without, however, in- 
volving any necessary reference to a pre- 
vious state of hiyher ardor or of fuller 
glow: compare Mare. Anton. vit. 2, 
avalwrupeiv paytacias opp. to aBevyivat, 
and apparently Plato, Republ. vi1. 527 
D, éxxadalpetal Te Kal dvaCwruperta. As 
has been before said, it is not wholly im- 
probable that Timothy might now have 
been in a state of adSuuta, but this infer- 
ence rests more on the general fact of 
the avduynors than on a meaning of the 
isolated word. Numerous examples of 
the use of (wm. and dvawm. will be found 
inWetstein in loc., Krebs, Obs. p. 360, 
Loesner, Obs. p. 412; see also Pierson, 
Mer. p. 170. Td xXGdpiona| 
‘the gift, the charism,’—not the Holy 
Spirit generally, thy xdpw Tod Mvevuatos, 
Theodoret, and apparently Waterland, 
Serm. xxi. Vol. v. p. 641 (whose clear 
remarks, however, on the concurrence 
of our spirit with the Holy Spirit are not 
the less worthy of attention),— but the 
special gift of it in reference to Timothy's 
duties as a bishop and evangelist, eis 
Tpogtaclay Tis ekkKAnolas, eis onmeta, eis 
Aatpelay Gracay. Chrysostom: compare 
Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 77. 5. 

51a THs emwed.] ‘through the laying on,’ 
etc. ; the hands were the medium by which 
the gift of the Holy Spirit was imparted. 
On the émrideois xeipay, see notes on 1 
Tim. iv. 14, where it is mentioned that. 


Cnap. I. 7, 8. 


8) Fy 3. > ‘ PS X n ? YZ, a a 
€0U, 0 EOTLY EV GOL ta THS ETLSETEMS THY XElLPQV av. 


2 TNO TH Y-. 195 


~~ 


7 ov ee 


Bexev hiv 6 Oeds IIvedwa Sedlas, adda Suvapews Kai ee 


Kal cwppovic pod. 


Do not then shrink from 
afflictions, for the sake of 
Him who made death pow- 
erless. 


the presbytery joined with the apostle in 
the performance of the solemn act. 

7. Wvetpa Seratas| ‘the spirit of 
cowardice,’ 9d 5a TodTo Tb Tvedpua eAdBo- 
Mev, iva UTooTEAAGuEda, GAN’ iva Twappn- 
oia(éuesa, Chrys.; not ‘a spirit, a nat- 
ural and infused character,’ Peile: see 
notes on Eph. i.17, and on Gal. vi. 1. 
By comparing those two notes it will be 
seen that in such cases as the present, 
where the mvetua is mentioned in con- 
nection with d:ddva k. T. A., it is better to 
refer it directly to the personal Holy 
Spirit and the abstract genitive to His 
specific xdpssua. Where, however, as 
in | Cor. iv. 21, Gal. /. c. the connection 
is different, the mvedua may be referred 
immediately to the human spirit (compare 
Olshausen, Opusc. p. 154), though even 
then ultimately to the Holy Spirit as the 
inworking power. In such formule, then, 
whether it be the human spirit as wrought 
on by the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit 
as working on the human spirit, will be 
best deduced from the context: with the 
present passage compare Rom. viii. 15, 
Gal. iv.6. On the omission of the article 
with mvedya, see notes on Galatians v. 


5: cwhpovicpod| ‘self-control ;° 


ey ee Vv 

{Zale 2jpdo [institutio] Syr., 
tatis,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; an ar. Aeydu. in 
N. T., but compare Tit. ii. 4. Swopo- 
viouds, as its termination suggests (Do- 
nalds. Cratyl. § 253. Buttm. Gr. § 119. 
7, see examples, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 511), 
has usually a transitive force, e.g. Plu- 
tarch, Cat. Maj. 5, ém cwppomoue tav 
&AdAwv, compare Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 9. 
2, Bell. 11. 1. 3; as, however, both the 
substantives with which it is connected 


“ sobrie- 


I am His preacher, and know that He will keep my deposit. 


\ > > A \ a a 

8 Mn ovv erataxyuyShs To waptipiov Tov 

' 2 lal) Wem ) \ \ , > lal b] AS 
Kupiou nav poe €ue Tov S€opLoy avTod, ara 


Guard thine. 


are abstract and intransitive, and as the 
usual meaning of nouns in -wos (‘ action 
proceeding from the subject’) is subject 
to some moditications (e. g. xpnopds, 
compare Buttm. /. ¢.), it seems on the 
whole best, with De Wette, Wiesinger, 
al., to give it either a purely intransitive 
(Plutarch, Quest. Conviv. viit. 3, cw- 
ppovicmots Tio 7) meTavoias) or perhaps 
rather reflexive reference ; iva cwppovicw- 
bev Tov év uty KiVOUMevwY TadnudTwY 
tiv atagiay, Theodoret, Chrysostom 2 ; 
comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s. vy. Vol. 11. p. 
1224, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 486 
(Bohn). 

8. w}) ody x. 7. A.] Exhortation, im- 
mediately dependant on the foregoing 
‘as God has thus given us the 
spirit of power, love, and self-control, do 
not therefore be ashamed of testifying 
about our Lord.’ On the connection of 
aisxvvoua and similar verbs with the ac- 
cusative, see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 19, 
p- 1138, Jelf, Gr. § 550. The compound 
form éraox. [émt probably marks the 
imaginary point of application, that on 
which the feeling is based, Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s. v. c. 3] is frequently thus used 
in the N. T., both with persons (Mark 
viii, 38, Luke ix. 26), and with things 
(ch. i. 16, Rom. i. 16), but not so the 
simple form. Observe the aor. subjunc- 
tive with uf, ‘ne te pudeat unquam,’ 
Leo; Timothy had as yet evinced no such 
feeling; see Winer, Gr. § 56. 1, p. 445. 
Tod Kuplou] ‘of the Lord,’ i.e. ‘about 
the Lord,’ gen. objecti; see Winer, Gr. § 
30. 1, p. 168, and esp Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 47. 7.1sq. The subject of this testi- 
mony was not merely the sufferings and 
crucifixion of Christ (Chrysost. and the 


verse ; 


126 


‘ A \ if lal 
cuvkakoTaynoov TO evayyeriw Kata dvvamuv Oecod, 


Pe WENO OD. 


Cuap. I. 9. 


9 ry SEL 
TOU O@- 


e a ‘ / ‘ / e / bd \ eed € a 
TAVTOS NAS KAL KANETAVTOS KANTEL AYia, OU KATA TA Epya NU@V 


GNA Kata lay TpdSeow Kal yapw THY SoScicav hyiv ev Xpictd 


Greek commentt.), but generally ‘omnis 
‘ preedicatio vel confessio que de Christo 
fit apud homines,’ Est. ; compare Acts i. 
8, @reod€ wor udptupes. Bengel remarks 
on the rareness of the formula, 6 Kup. 
quev, in St. Paul, without ’I. X.; add, 
however, 1 Tim. i. 14: see also Heb. vii. 
14, but not 2 Pet. iii. 15, where the ref- 
erence appears to the Father. 
Séoutov abvrod] ‘His prisoner,’ i.e. 
whom He has made a prisoner, gen. auc- 
torts ; see notes on Eph. iii. 1, and also 
Harless, in loc, p. 273. ‘ Ne graveris vo- 
cari discipulus Pauli hominis captivi,’ 
Est., G@cum. 
kKakoTadnoov xK.T.A.] ‘but (on the 
contrary) join. with me in suffering ills for 
the Gospel ;’ &AA& (as usual after nega- 
tives, Donalds. Craty!. § 201) marking 
the full opposition between this clause 
and the words immediately preceding 
(comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2, 3), 
‘don’t be ashamed of me, but rather suf- 
fer with me.’ It is thus perhaps better 
with ZLachm. to retain the comma after 
njuav. The preposition sty must be re- 
ferred, not to evayyeA. (Syr., Theod.), 
as this would involve a very unusual and 
unnecessary prosopopeeia (wavtas tobs 


GAAG our- 


Tov evayy. Kipukas Kal uvoras, Theoph. 
2), but to wo: supplied from the preced- 
ing eué. The dat. evayyea. is then either 
the dat. of reference to (see notes on Gal. 
i. 22; comp. the fuller expression Phil. 
ly. 3, ev 7@ evayy. cuvnSAnody mor, and 
below, ch. ii. 9), or more probably and 
more simply the dat. commodi, imtp rod 
evayy. maoxew, Chrys., Theoph. 1. 

Kata Svvaurir| 
correspondingly to that Svvauis which 
God has displayed towards us in our 
calling and salvation,’ ver. 9 seq. (Wie- 
sing.), not with any reference to the spir- 
itual Sdvamis infused in us, ver. 7 (De 


‘im accordance with, 


Wette, Huther). The prep. xar& has 
thus its usual meaning of norma (Winer, 
Gr. § 49. d, p. 858) ; the ddvauis, as ver. 
9 shows, was’ great, our readiness in xa- 
kode Ought to be proportionate to it. 
It need scarcely to be added that this 
clause must be connected, not with evay- 
yedlw (Heinrich, al.), but with ocvveako- 
madnooy ; éme) popticby iv 7d KakoTds., 
Tapauvseirat avTov, mh yap pyar dSuvdmec 
7H 0% GAAG TH TOD Xp. [Ocot], Theophyl., 
Cicum. 

9. tot sdoavros Hnuas] ‘who 
saved us,’ exercised His saving agency 
towards us ;’ ‘servatio heec est applica- 
tiva, non tantum acquisitiva, eam ipsam 
ob causam quod tam arcte cum vocatione 
connectitur,’ Beng., compare also Green, 
Gr. p. 818; we must. however, in all 
eases be careful not to assign too low a 
meaning to this vital word (comp. notes 
on Eph. ii. 8); the context will generally 
supply the proper explanation; see the 
collection of passages in Reuss, Theol. 
1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 250. On the act of 
cwTnpia applied to God, see notes on 1 
Tim. i. 1. Mosheim and, to a certain 
degree, Wiesinger, refer judas to St. Paul 
and Timothy: this is very doubtful ; it 
seems much more satisfactory to give 
jets here the same latitude as in ver. 7. 
kaXtéoavtos] The act of calling is al- 
ways regularly and solemnly ascribed to 
God the Father; see notes on Gal. i*6, 
and compare Reuss, Zid. 1v. 15, Vol. 
11. p. 144 sq. This KAjjous is essentially 
and intrinsically ayia; it is a KAjots els 
On the 
‘vocatio externa and interna,’ see espe- 
cially Jackson on the Creed, Book x11. 
7 (init.). 
i) | ‘according to our works ; 


kolwwviay tov Xp., 1 Cor. i. 9. 


\ > a A 
KaTa TA Epya 
* compare 
The 


prep. kata may certainly be here refer- 


Tit. ili. 5, od« €& Epywv.....cowoer. 


Crxp. J. +10: 


Uh lal XY , ? , 
_£NG OV TT po Xpovav aALWVLOY, 


2 TIMOTHY. 


127 


10 davepwSeicay bé viv dua THs e7e- 


gavelas Tod cwthpos juav Incod Xpictovd, ckatapynoavtos pev 


red to the motives (Beza, De W.) which 
prompted the act; see examples in Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 49. d, p. 358: it seems, how- 
ever, equally satisfactory, and perhaps 
more theologically exact, especially in 
the latter clause, to retain (with Vulg., 
Clarom., al.) the more usual meaning ; 
comp. Eph. i. 11, iii. 11, al. 

idiav mpddseciv| ‘ His own purpose ;’ 
observe the idiav; ‘that purpose which 
was suggested by nothing outward, but 
arose only from the innermost depths of 
the divine evdoxia; ofcodey ex Tis aya- 
SéTyTos abtTod dpudmevos, Chrys; comp. 
Eph. i. 5. The nature of the mpédseors 
is further elucidated by the more specific 
kal xdpw Kk. 7.A.; there is, however, no 
év 6ia Svoiy, ‘propositum gratiosum’ 
(comp. Bull, Prom. Trad. v1. 38), but 
simply an explanation of the mpdd_eous by 
a statement of what it consisted in, and 
what it contemplated. 

thy Sodetaav k.7.A.| ‘which was 
given to us in Christ Jesus.’ The literal 
meaning of these words must not be in- 
fringed on. Aodeicay is simply ‘ given,’ 
not ‘destined ;’ it was given from the 
beginning, it needed only time for its 
manifestation. éy Xp., again, is not ‘per 
Christum,’ Est.’ but ‘72 Christo,’ ‘in His 
person,’ avapxws tadta mpoteTimwto ev 
Xp. “Ino. yevéoSau, Chrys.; comp. 1 Pet. 
i. 20, see notes on Eph. i. 7, and the good 
remarks of Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 
e205. _ 7p xpdvav aiwviwr| 
‘ before eternal times ;’ compare 1 Cor. ii. 
ie mpo Tav aidvwy, Eph. ili. 11, mpddeow 
Tov aidvwy, and see notes. The exact 
meaning of the term xpdvor aidvior (Rom. 
xvi. 25, Tit. i. 2) must be determined 
from the context ; in the present case the 
meaning seems obviously ‘ from all eter- 
nity,’ somewhat stronger perhaps than 
mpo KataBoAjs Kéopuov, Eph. i. 4, ‘ before 
times marked by the lapse of unnumbered 


ages, — times, in a word, which reached 
from eternity (a7. aiévos) to the coming 
of Christ, in and during which the wuarh- 
piov lay ceorynuevoyv, Rom. xvi. 25; see 
Meyer ?n loc., and comp. notes on Tit. i. 
8, where, however, the meaning is not 
equally certain. 

10. pavepwSetoar] ‘made manifest,’ 
— not ‘realized,’ Heydenr. The word 
implies what is expressed in other pas- 
sages, e.g. Rom. xvi. 25, Col. i. 26, that 
the eternal counsels of mercy were not 
only formed before all ages, but hidden 
during their lapse, till the appointed viv 
arrived ; compare notes on Eph. iii. 9. 
THS ewtpaveias| ‘the appearing ;’ 
not merely the simple act of the incarna- 
tion (tis evavSpwrncews, Theodoret), but, 
as the context and the verb érepavy, 
Tit. ili. 4 seem to suggest, the whole 
manifestation of Christ on earth (évcap- 
kos oixovouia, Zonaras, Lex. Vol. 1. p. 
806), the whole work of redemption, sc. 
‘tota commoratio Christi inter homines,’ 
Bengel: so Wiesing., and De W. In 
the words that follow, the order ?Inaod 
Xp. is perhaps to be preferred to the re- 
versed order ( Tvsch.), both on account of 
the seeming preponderance of the exter- 
nal evidence (see Tisch. in loc.), and the 
probability of a conformation to yer. 9. 
katapyhoavtos| ‘when He made of 
none effect,’ or, more exactly, ‘having 
made, as He did, of none effect,’ not 
‘who,’ ete. Alford; it being always de- 
sirable in a literal translation to preserve 
the fundamental distinciion between a 
participle with, and a participle without 
the article ; see Donalds. Gir. § 492, and 
compare Cratyl. § 305. 
tov Savaroy| ‘death,'—either regard- 
ed (a) objectively, as a personal adversary 
and enemy of Christ and His kingdom, 1 
Cor. xv. 26, €oxaros éxdpds Katapyeirat 
6 Sdvatos; or (b) as a spiritual state or 


128 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. I 11, 12.. 


Tov Sdvatov, dwticavtos Sé Conv Kat afdSapciav bia Tod edarye- 


riov, 1 eis 6 éréEInv eym KypvE Kal aroaToNos Kal SiWdoKados 


eSvav. 


condition, including the notions of evil 
and corruption 1 John iii. 14, meraBe- 
Bhxapev ex ToD Savarov eis Thy CwHy: Or, 
more probably (c) as a power and princi- 
ple (rod Savdrov ta vedpa, Chrys.), per- 
vading and overshadowing the world; 
compare Heb. ii. 14, ta 8a Tod Savdrov 
Katapyhon Tov To Kpdtos ~xovTa TOU Sa- 
varov. The objection to (a) lies in the 
fact that 1 Cor. xv. 26 refers specially to 
the second advent of Christ, when Death 
and the powers of evil, aggregated, as it 
were, into personalities (comp Rev. xx. 
13, 14), will be individually ruined and 
overthrown. In (6) again, the usual and 
proper force of katapyéw (‘ render inope- 
rative,’ Rom. iii. 3, iv. 14, al., or ‘de- 
stroy,’ 1 Cor. xv. 24, 2 Thess. ii. 8), is 
too much obscured ; while in (c) this is 
fully maintained, and in the opp. clause 
(uév—dé) the force of gwricavtos (not 
mpounvicavtos, Theol, but eis pas ayd- 
yovros, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5; the principle 
of death cast a shade over the world, 
Matth. iv. 16) is more distinctly felt. On 
KaTapyéw, comp. notes on Gal. v. 4. 

(wiv cal apdapciar| ‘life and in- 
corruption ;’ of course no év 8:4 dvoiv, as 
Coray, and Wakefield, Sylv. Crit. Vol. 
Iv. p 208: the latter substantive charac- 
terizes and explains the former, not, how- 
ever, with any special reference to the 
resurrection of the body (1 Cor. xy. 42), 
as this would mark a@Sapota as a condi- 
tion (‘ conditio illa felicissima,’ Leo), but 
with a reference to the essential quality 
of the (w7, its imperishable and incorrup- 
tible nature (1 Pet. i. 4), and its com- 
plete exemption from death (Rev. xxi. 
4): compare Rom. ii. 7, It may be ob- 
served that Sdvaros, as a known and 
ruling power, has the article, (w) and 
&p%apola as only recently revealed, are 
anarthrous. bia TOD 


12 8 7A pears \ la) 7 > > J b> Ve 
L HV AlTLaV Kal TAUTA TTATYX@, QXX ovK ETAL XUVO LOL" 


evayyeAtou is perhaps more correctly 
referred to @wricavros «.7.A (Alf.) than 
considered as loosely appended to the 
whole foregoing sentence (ed. 1, Wie- 
sing.), as it thus seems suitably to define 
the medium by which the pwticpuds took 
place, and to form a natural transition 
and introduction to ver. 11 sq. All that 
follows “Ino. Xp. thus forms (as seems 
most natural), one connected and subor- 
dinate (tertiary) predication: compare 
Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq. 

ll. e¢s 8] Scil. evayyéAcoy ; ‘ad quod 
evangelium predicandum,’ Est., not ‘in 
quo,’ Vulg., Clarom. On the remaining 
words see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 7, where 
there is the same designation of the apos- 
tle’s offices, though, as the context shows, 
the application is somewhat different. 
There the apostle is speaking of his of- 
fice on the side of its dignity, here in ref- 
erence to the sufferings it entailed on him 
who sustained it. The ey is thus here 
not ‘ dignitatem preedicantis,’ but ‘ cohor- 
tantis;’ my KaTraméons tTolvuy ev Tots 
euois taShuact’ KaTaBéBAnta Tov Sava- 
Tov Ta vevpa, Chrysostom. 
éréSnv| ‘I was appointed ; 
Timed: 22 

12. 80 hv aitiav| ‘For which cause ;’ 
scil. because I am thus appointed as a 
herald and apostle, compare verse 6. 
This formula is only used by St. Paul in 
the Pastoral Epistle, ver. 6 and Tit. if 
13: see also Heb. ii. 11, and Acts xxviii. 
20; compare also Acts x. 21, xxii. 24, 
Xxiii. 28, 


compare 


kal TadTal 
‘ even these things ;’ bonds, imprisonment, 
and sufferings, see ver. 8, to which the 
following émaoxdvouat shows a distinct 
reference. 
‘in whom I have put my trust, and still do 
put it’ (compare notes on Eph. ii. 8), 
literally, ‘to whom I have given my tio- 


6 wenmlaotevka| 


Gap? 11341 


2 TIMOTHY. 129 


olda yap © TemioTEvKa, Kal TeTeiopaL OTe duvaTOs eat THY 
, / >’ > / \ e i} 13 e , 
mapasnKkny pov pudrdéas eis exeivnv THY 1)épav. UTOTUTTWOLY 


is,’ scarcely ‘on whom I have reposed 
my faith and trust’ (Bloomf.), as this 
would rather imply ém with the dative ; 
see notes on 1 Tim. i. 16, where those 
constructions are discussed. It need 
scarcely be said that ¢ refers to God the 
Father (ver. 10), not to Jesus Christ. 
duvards eo ty| ‘is able,’ has full and 
sufficient Svvauis, in evident reference to 
the Svvauis @cod, ver. 8. 

Thy TapadryiKny pov ‘the trust com- 
mitted unto me,’ ‘my deposit,’ thy mioTw 
not kai 7b Khpvyua, Theophyl. 1, after 
Chrys. 1; or here, perhaps, with a slight 
expansion, ‘the office of preaching the 
Gospel,’ ‘the stewardship committed to 
the apostle ;’ see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 20, 
The meanings assigned to mapadhinv 
are very numerous, and it must be con- 
fessed that not one of them is wholly free 
from difficulty. The usual reference to 
the soul, whether in connection with you 
as what the apostle had entrusted to God 
(Beng. ; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 19, Luke xxiii. 
46). or as a deposit given by God to man 
(Bretschn., compare Whitby), is at first 
sight very specious ; but if, as the con- 
text would then seem certainly to re- 
quire, it had any reference to life, surely 
eis €kelyny T. iu. must be wholly incon- 
gruous ; and if again we refer to 1 Thess. 
y. 23 (Alf.), the prayer for the entire pre- 
servation of the personality is there inti- 
mately blended with one for its dueuola 
(Gpéurtws rnpn%ein), a moral reference, 
which finds no true parallel in the simple 
guadia. It is an interpretation more- 
over unknown to the Greek expositors. 
Less probable scems the idea of an ayti- 
juodia, Theophyl. 3, maintained also by 
Wiesing. 7. e. erépavov (wis x. 7. A., ch. 
iv. 7, 8, for how can this consistently be 
termed a deposit? We retain, therefore, 
the meaning advocated in notes on 1 Tim. 
1. c., with that expansion only which the 


context here seems itself adequately to 
supply. The only difficulty is in gv- 
Adtat, which is certainly more suitably 
applied to the holder than the giver of 
the deposit. The gen. wou is thus the 
possessive gen., ‘ the deposit which is defi- 
nitely mine.’ The other interpretations 
are fairly discussed in the long note of 
De Wette zn loc. eis 
éxetyny Thy He.] ‘against that day,’ 
Auth. Version, 7. e. to be produced and 
forthcoming when that day — not tov 
Savdrov (Coray), but of final reckoning 
—comes; I shall then render up my 
trust, through God’s preserving grace, 


faithfully discharged and inviolate. Eis 


does not seem here merely temporal 
(John xiii. 1), but has its more usual eth- 
ical sense of ‘ destination for ;’ compare 
Eph. iv. 30, Phil. i. 10, ii. 16, al. 

13. €x «] ‘have,’ as a possession, ‘ let 
the émor. be with thee,’ Syr.; not for 
xarexe, Huth., Wiesing., though some- 
what approaching it in meaning; see 
notes on 1 Zim. iii. 9, and compare 2b. 
ch. i..19 


brotuTwotr| 


i) v 
‘ the delineation, pattern,’ {5c |‘ formam 


ad quam in rebus fidei et vitee respicitur,’ 
Schaaf | Syr. The meaning of smoruz. 
is here only slightly different from that 
in 1 Tim. i. 16; see notes. In both 
cases trot. is little more than tvzos (see 
Rost u Palm, Lex. s. y.); there, how- 
ever, as the context seems to require, the 
transitive force is more apparent, here 
the word is simply intransitive; com- 
pare Beveridge, Serm. v1. Vol. 1. p. 111 
(Angl.-Cath. Libr). What St. Paul had 
delivered to Timothy was to be to him a 
‘pattern’ and ‘exemplar’ to guide him ; 
breruTwoduey eikdva Kal apXETUTOY....+. 
TavTHY Thy broTUT. TOUTETTL TO ApXETUTOY 
éxe, dv def Cwypapijoa am avrijs Adp- 
Bave Kat Cwypdper, Theophylact, after 


17 


130 


2 P7IMOTHY. 


Cuap. -I. 14,915: 


” e r ’ @ Tee) a 5) 1 \ 
EXE VYLALVOVT@V oyov, wv Tap €fov nNKOVOaS, EV TlLOTEL KQAb 


ayann th ev Xpiotd Inood’ “ tiv Karyv Taparneny pvraov 


\ s e / la) b) nr 2 (4 lal 
6a IIvevpatos ayiov Tod évoixodvTos ev Hp. 


They which are in Asia all 
deserted me. The Lord 


5 QOidsas Todt, bts aTecTpapnody pe Tdv- 


: a ® ¢ 
give mercy at the last day reg gi éy tT Aola, av éatv Pvyedos Kai ‘Eppo- 


unto Onesiphorus. 


Chrys. and Theod, The subst. irotim. 
dispenses with the article on the princi- 
ple of correlation (see Middl, Art. 111. 3. 
.6, p. 48, ed. Rose), and is moreover suf- 
ficiently defined by the following gen. ; 
compare Winer, Gr.§ 19. 2. b, p. 114. 
The omission before the latter words 
seems properly accounted for (De W.) 
by the probable currency (comp. vduos) 
of the formula, compare 1 Tim. vi. 3. 
Sytatvdvtwy Adywr| ‘sound words ;’ 
compare notes on 1 Tim. i. 10. 

évy mlaorte:x.t. A. specify the princi- 
ples in which the dori. is to be held. 
’Ey is not to be joined with #xovoas, and 
regarded as equivalent to mepi (Theodo- 
ret, compare Chrysostom), still less with 
byiavdytwv, (Matth.) but obviously with 
2xe bror., marking, as it were, the sphere 
and element to which the holding of the 
tot. was to be restricted; compare 1 
Tim. iii. 9. TH év Xp."Ina.| 
Specification of the nature of the mots 
and a@ydrn. The anarthrous nouns (con- 
trary to the more usual rule) have an 
article in the defining clause, as the ob- 
ject is to give that defining clause promi- 
nence and emphasis; ‘in Christo omnis 
fides et amor nititur, sine Christo [extra 
Christum] labitur et corruit,’ Leo: see 
Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p. 159, and notes on 
1 Tim. iii. 18. Huther joins 17 év Xp. 
only with aydan, but is thus inconsistent 
with himself, on 1 Tim. i. 14. 

14. rhyv kadhv wapadsjnyy| ‘the 
good deposit,’ ‘the good trust committed 
(unto thee);’ the doctrine delivered to 
Timothy to preach, ‘ catholice fidei ta- 
lentum,’ as in 1 Tim vi. 20; compare 
above, verse 12, and see notes on both 
passages. It is here termed the good 


trust, as 7 KaAy SidacKaAla, 1 Tim. iy. 6, 
6 Kadds ayay, 1 Tim. vi. 12. 

The medium by 
which Timothy was to guard his deposit 
was the Ioly Spirit, still further speci- 
fied (not without a slight hortatory no- 
tice and emphasis) as Tob évoicovyTos ev 
jjmiv ; compare notes on ver. 13: omov- 
dacov ovy puddttew Td Tlvedua Kal add 


dia Wvetpartos] 


mdAW THpI}oEL ToL THY TapakaTadyKny, 
Theophyl. 

15. of8as todtol] The apostle now, 
with a slight retrospect to ver. 8, stimu- 
lates and evokes the energy of his disci- 
ple by reminding him of the defection of 
others. What possibly might have been 
a cause of depression to the affectionate 
and faithful Timothy is actually made 
by the contrast which St. Paul implies 
and suggests (ov ody téxvoy pov, ch. ii. 
1), an inspiriting and quickening call to 
fresh efforts in the cause of the Gospel. 
amnectTpagnaody pel 
JSrom me: 


‘turned away 
not an apostasy from the faith 
(Erasm.), but, as the context implies 
(comp. ver. 8, 16), defection from the 
cause and interests of St. Paul; aversion 
instead of sympathy and cooperation ; 
comp. ch. iv. 16, mayres pe éykatéAumov. 
The aorist passive has here, as in Matth. 
v. 42, the force of the aor. middle ; dmoo- 
Tpepoua with an ace. persone (Heb. xii. 
25), or an accus. rei (Tit. i. 14) being 
both of them legitimate and intelligible 
constructions ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 39. 
2, p. 233. wavTes of ev 
Th Agia| ‘allwhoarein Asia.” These 
words can imply nothing else than that 
those of whom the apostle is speaking 
were in Asia at the time this Epistle was 
written ; it being impossible (with Chrys., 


Cuap. I. 16,17. 


yevns. 


2 TIMOTHY. 


131 


16 Ag édeos 6 Kupios tO’ Ovnaipépov oikw, bt TONAAKS 


pe avev&ev kal tiv ddvalv pou ov«K erratcxivSy, *7 adda Yyevo- 


Theophyl., Gicum., al.) to so invert the 
meaning of the preposition (év = é& or 
amd), as to refer it to Asiatic Christians 
thenat Rome. The arocrpopn, however, 
may have taken place in Asia or else- 
where ; it may have been a neglect of 
the absent apostle in his captivity (Leo), 
or a personal manifestation of it during 
a sojourn at Rome (De Wette, Wiesing., 
Huth.). The context, coupled with ch. 
iv. 16, seems most in favor of the latter 
supposition ; so also Wieseler, Chronol. 
p- 405. Of Phygelus (‘Fygelus,’ Cla- 
romanus) and Hermogenes nothing is 
known. On the geographical 
limits of "Acia (Agia idiws kadoupevn, 
‘Asia propria’) and the wider (Acts xx. 
16, 1 Pet. i.-1, Rev. i. 4) or narrower 
(Acts ii. 9, xvi. 6 %) applications of the 
term, see Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Asia,’ 
and especially Wieseler, Chronol. p. 31 
—85, where the subject is very satisfac- 
torily investigated. 

16. 5¢] On this form see notes on 
Eph.i.17. The term &:3dvat Zrcos (Luke 
i. 72, x. 37, James ii. 13, wotjoa ZAcos) 
only occurs in this place. Onesiphorus 
showed @Acos to St. Paul ; the apostle in 
turn prays that €Aeos may be granted to 
his household. From the use of the form 
*Ovne. ot x w here and ch. iv. 19, but still 
more the terms of the prayer in ver. 18, 
it has been concluded, uot without some 
show of probability, that Onesiphorus 
was now dead; so De W., Huth., Wie- 
sing., Alf., and, as might easily be imag- 
ined, Estius and Mack. It does not, 
however, at all follow that the Romanist 
doctrine of praying for the dead is in any 
way confirmed by such an admission, 
see Hammond in /oc:, and comp. Taylor, 
Sermon vi11. (on 2 Sam. xiy. 14). 
avewvier| ‘refreshed ;’ an ar. Acydu. 
in the N. T. (the subst. avdutis occurs, 
Acts iii, 19); comp. avémavaay, 1 Cor. 


18. Neither from the derivation 
|Woxw, — not wuxf, Beza, itself a deriva- 
tive from the verb, comp. Orig. de Prine. 
11. 8] nor from the prevailing use of the 
word elsewhere have we sufficient reasons 
for limiting the avapuéis merely to bodily 
refreshment (Mosh., De W.); compare 
e.g. Xenophon, Hell. vi1. 1. 19, tavrn 
avepoxanoay of Tay Aaed. TUMmaxoL. 
thy &AvGiY pov| ‘my chain.’ On the 
singular ‘catenam meam,’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom., but not apparently Syriac [comp. 
Mark v. 4, Luke viii. 29] or Goth., com- 
pare notes on Eph. vi. 20. As is there re- 
marked, an allusion to the ‘ custodia mil- 
itaris,’ though not certainly demonstra- 
ble, is not wholly improbable ; compare 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 405. 
ématoxvyvan| The evidence of the 
MSS. is here decidedly in favor of this 
irregular form ; compare however, Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 12, p. 68, obs. On the mean- 
ing of the compound, see notes on ver. 8. 
17. GAAG yevouwevos k.7.A.| ‘But 
on the contrary (far from being ashamed 
of my bonds) when he had arrived in 
Rome ;’ the ddAd& answering to the pre- 
ceding negative, and serving to introduce 
contrasted conduct which still more en- 
hances the exhortation in ver. 8. The 
correctisn of Beza, ‘cum esset Rome,’ 
for ‘cum Romam venisset,’ Vulg., Cla- 


XV1. 


oO v 
romanus [Rome], (at, ¢> Syriac) 


is uncalled for, and inexact. Nor is ye- 
yéuevos ‘being at Rome’ (Hamm.), still 
less, ‘after he had been at R.’ (Oeder, 
Conject. de diff. S. S. loc. p. 733), but 
literally ‘when he arrived and was 
there ;’ compare Xenoph. Anab. Iv. 3, 
29, ds kv mparos ev TG Tepay yevynTat, ib. 
Cyrop. Viti. 5.18, amidv eyévero ev My- 
Sois. omovdarorepor| 
‘with greater diligence,’ not merely ‘ with 
diligence,’ Syr., nor even ‘ very diligent- 


152 


2TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. I. 18—II. 1. 


pevos ev “Pon orrovdaidrepoy efitncéy pe Kal edpev. 18 dem 


feridncice Ste araoa Kuoiov év éxet Ay Oa \ 
avT® 6 Kupuos evpeiv Edeos mapa Kupiov ev exewn TH Hepa. Kat 
iv4 > > f ’ / \ , 

doa ev Edéow dunxovncev, BéAtLov ov ywackes. 


Be strong, faithful, and en- 
durant. No one, whether 


II. 30d odv, téxvoy pov, évduvayod év TH 


soldier, athlete, or husbandman, reaps reward without toil. 


ly,’ Auth. Ver., both of which obscure 
the tacit comparison. The comparative 
does not imply any contrast between 
Onesiphorus and others, nor with ‘the 
diligence that might have been expected ’ 
(Huther), but refers to the increased dil- 
igence with which Onesiphorus sought 
out the apostle when he knew that he 
was in captivity. He would have sought 
him out omovdalws in any case, now he 
sought for him omovdadrepoy ; compare 
Winer, Gr, § 35. 4, p. 217. 

kat evpev| ‘In carcerem conjicitur et 
arcti custodiA tenetur, non ut antea in 
domo conductdé omnibus nota; unde On- 
esiphorus non nisi postquam sollicite que- 
sivisset invenit eum,’ Pearson, Aunal. Paul. 
Vol. 1. p. 395 (ed. Churton). 

18. 6 Kvpcos «.7.A.] The repetition 
of Kips is certainly not to be explained 
away as a Hebraistic periphrasis for the 
pronoun, Coray, Peile; the examples 
cited in Winer, Gr. § 22. 2, p. 130, are, 
as all recent commentators seem agreed, 
quite of a different nature. It is, how- 
ever, doubtful whether the first Kvpios is 
Christ, and the second God, or vice versa. 
The express allusion in éxetyn TH jjmepe 
to that day when all judgment is commit- 
ted to the Son (John v.22) seems certainly 
in favor of the latter supposition : as, how- 
ever, in ver. 16 6 Kup., in accordance with 
the prevailing use in these and St. Paul’s 
Epp. generally (see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, p. 
113), seems to be ‘ our Lord,’ 6 Kiipios can 
scarcely be otherwise in the present verse ; 
see Wiesing. in loc. It may be added 
too, that if the idea of the judicial fune- 
tion of our Lord were intended to be in 
especial prominence, we should rather 
have expected mapa Kuplw, 2 Pet. ii. 11, 
see Winer, Gr. § 48. d, p. 352. Even 


if this be not pressed, it need scarcely be 
said that judgment is not unfrequently 
ascribed to the Father; see Rom. ii. 5, 
Heb. xii. 23, al. It may be observed 
that some MSS. and Vv. (D'E!; Cla- 
rom., Sangerm., al.) read @e@ : this, how- 
ever, can only be alleged as showing the 
opinion of the writer, or possibly the cur+ 
rent interpretation of the time. 
Sinkdynoev] ‘he ministered,’ —not 
specially ‘unto me’ (Syr., Auth. Ver.); 
for then BéAriov would be out of place, 
or ‘to the saints at Ephesus’ (Flatt, 
Heydenr.), but simply and generally, 
‘how many good offices he performed,’ 
‘quanta ministravit, Vulg. The asser- 
tion of Wieseler, Chronol. p. 463, that 
Onesiphorus was a deacon at Eph., can- 
not safely be considered as deducible 
from this very general expression. 
BéATtov] ‘better than I can tell you,’ 
Beza, Huther, al.; see above, and Wi- 
ner, Gr. §'35. 4, p. 217. 


Cuarrer II. 1. cd ody, tTékvor 
pov] ‘ Thou then, my child ;’ affectionate 
and indlvidualizing address to Timothy, 
with retrospective reference to ver. 15 sq. 
The ody is thus not merely in reference 
to the example of Onesiphorus (Moller), 
ver. 16, still less in mere continuation of 
the precepts in chap. i. 1—14 (Matth., 
Leo), as the od would thus be otiose, but 
naturally and appropriately refers to the 
whole subject of the foregoing verses, the 
general defection of of év 7H Aoig from 
St. Paul, and the contrasted conduct of 
Onesiphorus. This address then, is not 
simply to prepare Timothy for suffering 
after his teacher’s example («i 6 diddoKa- 
Aos TOAA@ maAdAov 6 padnris, Chrys.), 
but rather to stimulate him to make up 


Guar, If. 2: 


2 Wer YT: 


133 


xapite TH €v Xpiot@ "Inood, 2 Kal & Axovcas wap’ éwod Sua mod- 


A@V papTUpwv, TaiTa TapaSou TiaToIs dvSpwrrows, olTWes iKavol 


by his own strength in grace for the cow- 
ardice and weakness of others ; see notes 
on ch. i, 15, 
‘be inwardly strengthened ;’ not with a 
medial force, ‘ fortis esto’ Bretschneider 
(a meaning which it never has in the 
N. T.), but simply passive: see notes on 
Eph. vi. 10, and Fritz. Rom. iv. 20, Vol. 
I. p. 245. The element and principle in 
which his strength is to be sought for is 
immediately subjoined ; comp. Eph. vi. 


évduvapmod| 


10 sq. é€vy TH Xaperel ‘in 
the grace;’ not 8a tis xapiros, Chrys., 
Beza. The preposition, as its involution 


in the verb also confirms, points (as 
usual) to the spiritual sphere or element 
in which all spiritual strength is to be 
found. Xdpis is clearly not to be ex- 
plained as the ‘ preaching of the Gospel’ 
(Hammond on Heb. xiii. 9), nor regarded 
as merely equivalent to 7d xdpiopa, ch. i. 
6 (comp. Leo), but has its more usual 
reference to the grace of ‘inward sancti- 
fication’ (compare Hooker, Append. to 
Book V. Vol. 11. p. 696), and betokens 
that element of spiritual life ‘ which ena- 
bles a man both to will and to do accord- 
ing to what God has commanded,’ Wa- 
terland, Much. ch. x. Vol. 1v. p. 666. 

TH €v Xp. Ina.| ‘ (the grace) which is in 
Christ Jesus,’ which is only and truly 
centred in Him, and of which He is the 
mediator to all who are in fellowship and 
union with Him ; further specification of 
the true nature of the xdpis ; * docet non 
aliunde contingere quam a solo Christo, 
et nemini Christiano [qui est in Christo] 
defuturam,’ Calvin: compare Reuss, 
Theol. Chrét. 1v.9, Vol. 11. p.. 92, and 
Meyer on Mom. viii. 39. 

2. kat & «.7.A.] The connection, 
though not at first sight very immediate 
with ver. 1, is sufficiently perspicuous. 
Timothy is to be strong himself in grace, 
and in the strength of it is to provide for 


others : he has received the true doctrine 
(comp. ch. i. 13) ; he is to be trusty him- 
self in dispensing it, and to see chat those 
to whom he commits it are trusty also. 

did TOAAGY wapr.| ‘among, inthe pres- - 
ence of, many witnesses,’ ‘ coram multis 
testibus,’ Tertull. Prescr. cap. 25 ; nearly 
= évémiov, 1 Tim. vi. 12 (Coray in me- 
taph.): so Chrys., moAAGy tapdytwr, cor- 
rectly in point of verbal interpretation, 
but too vague in his explanation, ov Ad- 
Spa hrovoas ovdé kpuph. The preposition 
da has here its primary meaning some- 
what obscured, though it can still be suffi- 
ciently traced to warrant the translation. 
Timothy heard the instruction by the 
mediation of many witnesses (‘ interve- 
nientibus multis testibus’); their pres- 
ence was deemed necessary to attest the 


enunciation of the fundamentals of Chris- 


tian doctrine (scarcely ‘a liturgy,’ J. ° 
Johns. Unbl. Sacr., Part 11. Pref., Vol. 
11. p. 20, A.-C. Libr.) at his ordination ; 
they were adjuncts to the solemnity, 
compare Winer, Gram. § 47.i, p. 338. 
There is some doubt who the moAAo} pap- 
Tupes were, and what is the exact occa- 
sion referred to. The least probable 
opinion is that they were ‘the law and 
the prophets,’ Gicum., after Clem. of 
Alexandria in his [now fragmentary] . 
Hypot. Book vi1.; the most probable is 
that they were the presbyters who were 
present and assisted at. Timothy’s ordi- 
nation; compare 1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14. vi. 
3, 2 Tim. i. 16; see Scholef. [Hints, p. 
122, miatots| ‘ faithful, 
—not ‘believing ;’ the context evidently 
requires the former meaning; the mapa- 


 &n«n was to be delivered to trusty guar- 


dians, tots ph mpodidovc. 7d KNpvypa, 
Chrys. ; see notes on 1 Tim. i. 12. The 
verb mapadouv seems clearly to point to 
the mapadhxn alluded to in chap. i. 12, 
14, and 1 Tim. vi. 20. 


154 


2 oD UM Om Ey . 


Cuap. II 8)'4t 


€covtar Kal érépous diddEa. 3 YuvvKaxoTaSnoov ws Kaos oTpa~ 


TwoTns Xpictov 'Incod. 


otttves does not appear to have here any 
explanatory force, but to refer to the mo- 
Tol &vspwmro. as belonging to a particular 
class ; ‘ to faithful men of such a stamp as 
shall be able,’ ete. ; S00 mpdywata (nret 
6 “Amoorodos amd Toy exxAnotacTiKoy O1- 
ddokadov, mpatov miotw Sid vd. wh pdetpn 
Thy Tapakatasynknv’ Sevtepoy ikavdtnta 
va Thy diddin, Coray (Romaic) : see notes 
on Gal. ii. 4, and on iv. 24. The future 
écovrat does not necessarily point to 
Timothy's departure (Beng., Leo), but 
to the result that will naturally follow 
the mapa5oats. Though this verse 
certainly docs not refer to any mapadocrs 
of doctrines of a more mystical character 
(Theophyl.), and can never be fairly 
urged as recognizing any equal and co- 
ordinate authority with the written Word 
(comp. Mack), it still may be said that 
the instructions seem definitely to con- 
template a regular, orderly, and succes- 
sive transmission of the fundamentals of 
Christian doctrine to Christian ministers 
and teachers, see Mosheim, de Rebus 
Christ. p. 130. On this subject general- 
ly, see the calm and sensible remarks of 
Waterland, Doctr. of Trin. vii. 5 sq., 
Vol. 111. p. 610 sq. 

3. cvvyKakomadsnaooyr] ‘Suffer af- 
flictions with me ;‘ compare notes on ch. 
i. 8. This reading, supported as it is by 
AC!D'E'FG; 17. 31, al.; Syr.-Philox. 
‘in marg., and apparently Syriac, Vulg., 
Clarom., Copt., Arm. (Zachm., Tisch.), 
is now rightly adopted by all recent crit- 
ics and commentators except Leo; so 
also Mill, Prolegom. p. cxxxvi. It is 
singular on what grounds Bloomf. (ed. 
9) can assert that the Syriac (Pesh.) 
must have read ob ody (Rec.) when the 


ee 
‘\aD 1 dal, [tu igitur] of ver 1, is omit- 


ted in the present verse ; and wholly in- 
conceivable how it can ‘be found in the 


? 3 / > t a 
4 ovdels oTpaTevomevos EwmrdéxeTat Tais 


Vatican B,’ when, as is perfectly well 
known, this Epistle and 1 Tim., Titus, 
Philem. are not found in that venerable 
MS. at all; compare Tisch. Prolegom. 
Dp. LEX. oTpaTLaTns X. 
"1 | ‘a soldier of Jesus Christ,’ ‘miles 
quem Christus sibi obstrinxit,’ Leo; on 
the gen. comp. notes on Eph.i.1. The 
nature of the service and its trials and 
sufferings are vigorously depicted by 
Tertull. ad Mart. cap. 3 sq.: The serip- 
tural and Pauline (e. g. 1 Cor. ix. 7, 2 
Cor. x. 3 sq.) character of the image is 
vindicated by Baumgarten Pastoralbr. p. 
106. 

4. oTpatrevdmevos| 

07 oO 

soldier, wthexS [serviens] Syr.; Scho- 
lef. Hints, p. 122. On this use of what 
Kriiger terms the dynamic middle,—in 
which while the active simply has the 
intransitive sense of being in a state, the 
middle also signifies to act the part of 
one in such a state,—see his Sprachl. § 
52. 8. 7, and the examples (esp. of verbs 
in -edw) in Donalds. Gir.§ 432. 2, p. 437, 
Jelf, Gr. 362. 6. €uTrAEKE- 
tat] ‘entangleth himself,’ ‘implicat se,’ 
Vulg., Clarom. ‘Hoc versu commendatur 
7d abstine versu sq. sustine,’ Beng. ; comp. 
Chrys. on ver, 5. There does not seem 
any necessity for pressing the meaning 
of the verb beyond that of ‘ being involved 
in,’ ‘implicari’ (Cie. Off 11.11); comp. 
2 Pet. ii. 20, rodTas [midopacw) ewrra- 
xévtes, Polyb. Hist. xxv. 9. 8, Tots "EA- 


‘ serving as a 


Anvixots mpdyuacw eumAerduevos, and 
(with eis) 7b. 1.17. 8, xxvii. 6. 11. 
Blov mpayparelars| ‘affairs of 


life,’ ‘negotiis vite civilis,’ Leo: on the 
distinction between Bios and the higher 
term (wh, see Trench, Synonyms, § 28. 
It does not seem necessary to restrict 
mpayy. (an drat Aeydu. in the N. T.) to 
‘mercatura’ (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 


@rrA pz IL. .5,'6: 


2a EVE OM Ys: 


135 


re / / ivf lel ri fe , vA 5 NN 5e 

tov Blov mpaypwatelas, va TO OTpaTooyIoavTL apéon. éav 5é 
A n 2\ \ ' , x 

Kal aS)dH Tis, ov. oTepavodTar av pi) vopimws aSdjon. §& TOV 


887 ; compare mpayuateverde, Luke xix. 
13): it rather includes, as the contrast 
seems to require, all the ordinary callings 
and occupations of life, which would ne- 
cessarily be inconsistent with the special 
and seclusive duties of a soldier; comp. 
Philo, Vit. Mosis, 111. 27, Vol. 11. p. 167 
(ed. Mang.), gpywy kal texv@v Tay «is 
mopioudv, kal mpayuat. Boat Kata Biov ¢- 
tyow, ib. § 28, p. 168, Téexvat Kal mparyu. 
kal wdAwoTa of mep) mopicmody Kat Biov ¢7- 
Tyow (Wetst.). 
Can, Apost. v1. Annot. p. 17, who speci- 
fies what were considered ‘seecularia ne- 
gotia.’ 


Compare Beveridge, 


TO OTpaToOADY?- 
gavt.| ‘who enrolled him as a soldier :’ 
orparod. an drag Aeydu. in N. T. and a 
Adkis TOD Tapakudovtos “EAAnVia pov (Co- 
ray), is properly ‘milites conscribere ’ 
(Plutarch, ar. § 9, al., compare Dor- 
vill. Charit. 1. 2, p. 29), and thence, by a 
very easy transition, ‘deligere militem,’ 

’ [elegit] Syr.: compare Joseph. 
Bell. v. 9. 4, Bonddv eorparordynce. 

5. €dv Fe kal mT. AJ] ‘again ifa 
man also contend in the games,’ ‘ certat in 
agone,’ Vulg., comp. Schol. Hints, p. 
123 : d€ introduces a new image (‘ quasi 
novam rem unamquamque enuntiatio- 
nem aftert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
362, ‘in the second place,’ Donalds. Cra- 
tyl. § 155) derived from athletic contests, 
1 Cor. ix. 24 sq. In the former image 
the Christian, as the soldicr, was repre- 
sented as one of many; here, as the ath- 
lete, he is a. little more individualized, 
and the personal nature of the encounter 
a little more hiated at; compare notes 
on Eph. vi. 12. The ral, as usual, has 
its ascensive force, pointing to the previ- 
ous image of the soldier; what applied 
in his case applies also and further in the 
case of the athlete ; comp. Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 638. Of the two forms, a3- 


Aé€w and aActw, it is said that (in the 
best Attic Greek) the latter is more com- 
mon in agonistic allusions, the former in 
more general references (Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. 8. v. &Aebw); compare, however, 
Plato, Legy. vit. p. 830, with ib. rx. p. 


873. voulmws| ‘according 


o> ° 
to rule,’ M©LMAsALS [in lege sua] Syr. ; 


N GSAnTiKh vdowous exer Tivds, Kad ovs 
Mpoonker TOUS AIANTAaS aywvitecsa, The- 
odoret. This, however, must not be 
restricted merely to an observation of 
the rules when in the contest, but, as the 
examples adduced by Wetst. seem cer- 
tainly to prove, must be extended to the 
whole preparation (mayta 7d Tots adAn- 
tais mpoohkovta, Chrys.) before it as well ; 
comp. Arrian, pict. 111. 10, ef vouluws 
Hadnoas, el €paryes doa Sei, et eyuuvdodns, 
ei TOU GAcimTov jKovoas ( Wetst.), and see 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. vy. Vol. 11. p. 414, 
where the force of this word is well illus- 
trated by patristic citations. The tacit 
warning aoKhoes 
(Chrys.), thus has its full force. 
6. Tov KowL@yTa K.T.A.| ‘ The la- 
boring husbandman must needs first partake 
of the fruuts (of his labor).’ There is some 
difficulty in (a) the connection and (b) the 
application of this verse. With respect 
to (a) it seems wholly unnecessary to 
admit an hyperbaton, sc. tov tay kapT. 
MeTaA. DéAovTa yewpy- Set Mp@Tov KoTLay, 
a grammatical subterfuge, still partially 
advocated by Winer, Gr. § 61. 4, p. 490 
(ed. 6); so Wakefield, Sylv. Crit. Vol. 1. 
p. 155. The example which Winer ad- 
duces, Xenoph. Cyr. 1.3.5, 6 obs mpatos 
TaT))p TeTayméeva, Tote, is surely very dif- 
ferent, being obvious and self explanato- 
ry. The meaning of the words seems 
sufficiently clear if a slight emphasis be 
laid on komi@vta (ox Gmd@s yewpy. ele 
GAAG Tov Kom., Chrys.), and if mpdrov 


SiamavTos ev elvat 


136 


2 2 iMOr HY 


Cuap. IL. 7,8. 


KoTLaVTA Yyewpyov Set mpOToV TOV KapTav peTadcapPBdvew. 


(dee SON t 
7 poet 0 Neyo" 
Remember Christ and His 
resurrection ; I sufferin His 


, t € + / 2 a 
bacet yap gol o Kupuwos OvVVEOLV EV TTACLY. 


8 Mrnpoveve ‘Incodv Xpiotov éynyeppévov 


Gospel for the sake of the elect ; if, however, we endure, he will reward us. 


(certainly not ‘ita demum,’ Grot.) be 
referred to other participators ; ‘the Ja- 
boring husbandman (not the idle one) 
ought to partake first (before all others) 
of the fruits :’ it is his inalienable right 
(‘lex quedam nature,’ Est.) in conse- 
quence of his kézos. 
mpa@tov had been omitted, it would have 
been a mere general and unconnected 
sentiment ; their insertion, however, turns 
the declaration into an indirect exhorta- 
tion, closely parallel to that of ver. 5: 
‘only the athlete who voutwws ade, ore- 
gavovtat; only the husbandman who 
koma has the first claim on the fruits.’ 
On the derivation and intension implied 
In Kom. (ovX GmA@s ThY KduvovTAa GAAG 
Tov komtéuevov, Chrys.), compare notes 
on 1 Tim. iv.10. The real difficulty is 
in (b) the application: what are the rap- 
Clearly not the support which 
must be given to ministers (Mosh.), as 
this would be completely alien to the 
context ; — nor the fruits of his labor and 
instruction which St. Paul was to reap 
from Timothy (Beng.),— nor the spirit- 
ual gifts which Timothy imparted to oth- 
ers and’ was to show first in himself 
(comp. Greg. Nyss. ap. Gicum. ),— but, 
as the context seems to require and even 
to suggest,—the future reward (comp. 
otepavovtat) which the faithful and la- 
borious teacher is pre-eminently to re- 
ceive in the world to come (compare 
Matth. v. 12, xiii. 43, xix. 21), not per- 
haps excluding that arising from the con- 
version of souls (Theod., and appy Syr. 


If xomayvra and 


trot 2 


ad nosis [fructus ejus], comp.Hamm.) 


to be partaken of even in the present 
world. 

7. vde1] ‘understand, grasp the mean- 
ing of ;’ not ‘ perpende,’ Beza, or ‘ atten- 


de,’ Beng.,— translations of voéw which 
can hardly be substantiated in the N. T., 


but ‘intellige,’ Vulg., “odo [in- 


tellige] Syr., as the context and prevail- 
ing meaning of the word (see especially 
Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 11. 19. p. 56) evi- 
dently require: éme:d}) aiviyyatwdas mdv- 
Ta elme, TH TOU OTpaT., TA TOD aSANTOD, 
Ta TOU yewpyov, vder pyoi, Theophylact. 
The reading in the following clause is 
not quite certain ; 897 yap x. 7. A. (Rec.) 
deserves some consideration on the prin- 
ciple, proclivi lectioni prestat ardua ;’ 
the uncial authority [AC'DEFG] seems, 
however, so distinctly to preponderate 
as to leave it scarcely defensible. If it 
be retained, yap may be taken in its most 
simple and primary meaning, ‘sane pro 
rebus comparatis’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 232, compare notes on Gal. ii. 6, or, 
more probably, in its usual argumentative 
sense (De W., Peile) ; the command be- 
ing explained by the prayer, 

atveotv| ‘understanding ;’ according 
to the somewhat elaborate definition of 
Beck (Bibl. Svelenl. 11. 19, p. 60), the 
faculty by which we mentally apprehend 
and are enabled to pass judgment upon 
what is presented to us; comp. notes on 
Eph. iii. 4, and Schubert, Gesch. de Seele, 
§ 40, notes, Vol. 11. p. 345 (ed. 4). 

8. pwynudveve] ‘bear im remem- 
brance ;’ here only with an accusative 
persone: it is found with an ace. rei, 
Matth. xvi. 9, 1 Thess. ii. 9, Rev. xviii. 
5, but more commonly with a gen. The 
distinction between the two cases seems 
to be that with the gen. the meaning is 
simply ‘to remember,’ the object being 
perhaps regarded as that from which, as 
it were, the memory emanates (comp. 
Donalds. Gr. § 451 gg.) ; with the accus. 


Cuap. II. 9. 


>? a 9 , y 
ek vEeKpOv, ex oTréppatos Aavis, 


St BNL OME Y. . 


137 


\ A > b ’ : 
KATA TO eEvaryyeduov frov, 9 ev 


@ KakoTTaN® péxpt Secpav ws KaKodpyos, GAAA 6 AOyos ToD Ocod 


the meaning is rather to ‘keep in remem- 
brance,’ ‘to bear in mind ;’ see Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 10, p. 184, and compare Bern- 
hardy, Synt. 111. 51, p. 177. The ex- 
hortation does not seem dogmatical (pds 
TovS aipeTixo’s amoTetvouevos, Chrysost., 
Est.), nor even directly hortatory (‘ re- 
cordare, ita ut sequare,’ Beng.), but in- 
tended to console and encourage. Tim- 
othy was to take courage, by dwelling 
on the victory over death and the glory 
of his Master,—his Master who was 
pleased to assume indeed man’s nature, 
yet, as the word of promise had declar- 
ed, of the kingly seed of David. 
eynyepu. €k vexkp@yv must obviously 
be connected immediately with “I. X. ; 
not, ‘ that He was raised,’ etc., Vulgate, 
Auth. Ver., Alford (in loc.), but ‘ as one 
raised,’ etc. (Goth. ‘ urrisanana’) ; com- 
pare Winer, Gr. § 45. 4; p. 309, and see 
Alford on 1 John iv. 2, but correct ‘ pri- 
mary,’ and ‘secondary,’ into ‘seconda- 
ry’ and ‘tertiary ’ (Donalds. Gr. § 417). 
‘On the use of the perfect (éynyepu.) in 
this and other events in our Lord’s life 
as marking their permanent character, 
see Green, (rr. p. 22. 

ex omépuatos Aavid| Scil. yerdue- 
vov, not Toy yevduevor, De Wette. The 
meaning of this clause, thus placed (ap- 
parently with studied emphasis) out of 
its natural order, can only be properly 
understood by comparing Romans i. 3. 
From that passage it would seem that it 
ean here scarcely be intended to point to 
Christ merely on the side of His human 
nature (Mosh.), and as a bare antithesis 
to éynyepu.: much less. has it any refer- 
ence to current Docetist doctrines (De 
Wette, Baur, Pustoralbr. p. 102). It 
points, indeed, as the context here sug- 
gests, and the words kara odpxa in Rom. 
l.¢. seem to render certain, to Christ’s 
human nature; but it points to it at the 


18 


same time as derived through the great- 
est of Israel’s Kings, and as in the ful- 
filment of the sure word of prophecy, 
Jer. xxiii. 5, Matth. xxii. 42, John vii. 
42; see Wiesing. in /oc., who has very 
ably elucidated the force and meaning of 
this clause. KaTa Td 
evayy. mov] * according to my Gospel,’ 
7. e. ‘the Gospel entrusted to me to 
preach,’ 7b evayyeA. 6 edaryyeAlCouat, 1 
Cor. xv. 1, comp. Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 
‘suum yocat ratione ministerii,’ Calvin 
on Rom. l.c. The remark of Jerome, 
‘ quotiescunque in epistolis suis dicit Pau- 
lus juxta evang. meum, de Luce signifi- 
cat volumine,’ noticed by Fabricius (Cod. 
Apocr. N. T. p. 372), and here pressed 
by Baur (Pastoralbr. p. 99). cannot be 
substantiated. ‘There may be an allusion 
to the twes erepa edaryyeArCouevor, The- 
ophyl., but it here scarcely seems in- 
tended. 

9. év &| ‘in which, as the official 
sphere of action, scil. ‘in quo predican- 
do’ Moller,— not, ‘on account of which,’ 
Beza 2: compare Rom. i. 9, 2 Cor. x. 
14, Phil. iv. 3. Wiesinger hesitatingly 
proposes to refer év é to Christ; such a 
construction is of course possible (comp. 
Eph. iv. 1), but involves a departure 
from the ordinary rule of connection, 
which does not seem required by the con- 
text. mex pt Seguar| 
“even unto bonds;* compare Phil. ii. 8, 
bMéexpt Savarov; Heb. xii. 4, wéxpis alua- 
tos. The distinction between péxp: and 
&xp., urged by Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 34, 
according to which ‘in ayp: cogitatur 
potissimum totum tempus [ante], in weé- 
xpt potissimum finis temporis [usque ad], 
in quo aliquid factum est,’ independently 
of being apparently exactly at variance 
with the respective derivations [connected 
with axpds, wdkpos, see Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 181], has been fully disproved by Fritz, 


’ 


138 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuar. II. 10. 


, \ fal / ¢ 
ov dédera. 1 Sia TOTO TavTa UTropévw Sia Tods exrEKTOUS, iva 
\ Ui f nr (eee) a , 
Kal avTol cwTnpias TUywow THs ev Xpict@S “Inood peta do&ns 


Rom, v.14, Vol. 1. p. 308, note. - The 
only reasonable and natural distinction 
is that suggested by derivation, viz., that 
&xpu, In some passages, seems to preserve 
an ascensive, wéxpt, an extensive reference 
(see especially Klotz, Devar. Vol 11. p. 
225); yet still usage so far contravenes 
this, that the real difference between the 
particles seems only to consist in this, 
that &xpr is also an adverb, néxpr not so ; 
that wéxpis ob is used with a gen. (Herm. 
Viger. No. 251), but not so &xpis ob; 
and finally, that the one occurs in certain 
formulz more frequently than the other, 
and yet that this again seems only fairly 
referable to the ‘usus scribendi’ of the 
author. The note of Fritzsche, Rom. 
l.c., on these particles, and the good ar- 
ticle by Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 224— 
231, will both repay the trouble of con- 
sultation. kKakoupyos| 
“a malefuctor,’ only here and Luke xxiii. 
32, 33, 39. It enhances the preceding 
words, 7a Tay Kakotpywy dTomévw adn, 
Theodoret : there may be too perhaps a 
paronomasia, Kakotad. kakodp., ‘mala 
patior tanquam malefactor,’ Est. 

ov dé€5erat] ‘2s not (has not been and 
is not) bound;’ with evident allusion 
(per paranomasiam) to the preceding 
The reference must not be lim- 
ited to the apostle’s particular case (dec- 
povyTat ai xelpes. GAN OvX 7 YA@TTA, 
Chrys.; ‘this hath not restrained me in 
mine office,’ Hamm.), but seems perfect- 
ly general, whether in reference to him- 
self or others, judy Sedeuévav A€AvTAL 
kal tpéxet, Theophyl. ; comp. Phil. i. 12. 
The full adversative force of aAAd, ‘ yet, 
nevertheless,’ must not be left unnoticed ; 
comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 3. 

10. 54a todro| Scarcely ‘quia me 
vincto evangelium currit,’ Beng., still 
less a mAcovacuds EBpaixés, Coray, but 
rather ‘ propter hoc, id est, ut evangelium 


deouar. 


disseminetur, ut verbum Dei currat et 
clarificetur,’ Est., the negative statement 
ov 5éde7a being treated as if it had been 
a positive statement of the poxom} of the 
Gospel. Having mentioned the bonds 
which his preaching had entailed on him, 
he adds with increasing emphasis, mdvta 
bmowevw ; bonds,— yea all things, sufter- 
ings, death : see Acts xxii. 13. 

bmoméva| ‘endure,’ ‘sustain,’ . ‘susti- . 
neo, Vulg.,—not exactly ‘am content 
to suffer anything,’ Peile (maéoxw, Chrys- , 
ostom), as this too much obscures the 


.normal meaning of iow in the N. T., 


which is rather that of a brave bearing | 
up against sufferings (‘ animum in perfe- 
rendo sustinet,’ Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 194) 
than a mere tame and passive sufferance 
(avéxecdar) of them ; see below, ver. 12, 
Rom. xii. 12, James i. 12, al., and con- 
trast dvexdueda, 1 Cor. iv. 12 (iméoxov, 
Psalm Ixxxviii. 50), where a meek suf- 
fering is intended to be specially depict- 
ed. Even in the case of maideta, the 
Christian tmouéve: (Heb. xii. 7 Tisch., 
compare 1 Pet. 11. 20); it is to be the en- 
durance of a quick and living, not the 
passiveness of a dead and feelingless 
soul. Thus then the meaning assigned 
to brouovh) by Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 
20, Vol. 11. p. 225, as its primary one, 
viz., ‘la soumission pure et simple qui 
accepte la douleur,’ seems certainly too 
passive, and is moreover not substantiated 
by the examples adduced, Rom. viii. 25, 
xv. 4, 2 Cor. i.6; see Meyer on 1 Cor. 
xiii. 7, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 258. 

tovs €xAektouvs| ‘the elect,” those 
whom God in his infinite mercy, and in ac- 
cord. with the counsels of His ‘ voluntas | 
liberrima,’ has been pleased éxAefacSat ; 
see notes on Eph. i.4. There appears 
no reason whatever for here limiting the 
éxAexrol to those who had not yet receiv- 
ed the message of the Gospel (De W.),. 


ri 


Cuap. II. Li 


2 TIMOTHY. 139 


> , 11- x e I ; 4 > \ , \ / 
AL@VLOV. TLTTOS O AOYOS’ eb Yap cuvaTreSavomer, Kat cvVENTO- 


‘qui adhuc ad Christi ovile sunt addu- 
cendi’ (Menoch. ap. Pol. Syn.), and 
still less for confining it to those who 
had already received it (Grot.): the ref- 
erence is perfectly general, timeless, and 
unrestricted. On St. Paul’s use of ék- 
Aexrol, comp. Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 14, 
Vol. 11. p. 133. nat avrot| 
“they too,’ they as weil as 1; as Kad queis 
kal yap kat nuds 6 Ocds ekeActaro, Chrys. 
The reference advocated by De Wette, 
“they as well as those who already be- 
lieve,’ seems certainly untenable,—on 
this ground, that it would imply a kind 
of contrast between the moro! and éxAex- 
toi; whereas the morvof, as Wiesinger 
fairly observes, must both be and remain 
exAextot. The tacit reference of the 
apostle to himself does not involve terms 
of greater assurance than the date of the 
Epistle and its language elsewhere (ch. 
iv. 8) fully warrant. 

Ts év Xp. "I.] Emphatic; rijs dvTws 
On the use of the arti- 
cle, see notes on ch. i. 13. 

meta SdEns aiwy.is appended to cw- 
tnpia, and, while serving to enhance it, 
also marks it as in its highest and com- 
pletest realization belonging to the future 


owrnplas, Chrys. 


world; # dvtws dota év ovpavois eativ, 
Chrys. Thus, then, though there were 
sufferings in this world, there was in the 
world to come salvation and glory. 

ll. migtds 6 Adyos| ‘ Faithful is 
the saying:’ compare notes on 1 Tim. i. 
15. Here, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9, the use of 
yap in the following clause seems to sug- 
gest a reference to the preceding words , 
mut. 5 Ady. Totos ; Stt of exAeKTOl evddEou 
Kal aiwviov cwrnpias emtevéovra, The- 
ophyl. after Chrys.; similarly Gicum. 
If with Huth., Leo, al., the formula be 
referred to what follows, the proper force 
of yap can scarcely be maintained: even 
in its most decidedly explanatory uses, 
the conclusive force (the apa portion, 


see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 232), though 
subordinated to the affirmative, is never 
so completely obscured (‘ videlicet,’ Peile, 
‘nimirum,’ Leo), as must be the case in 
the present passage. In Matth. i. 18, 
noticed by De W., the use of yap was 
suggested bythe preceding oftws; see 
Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. 1. 1. 6. 

el yap x.7.A.| Ithas been asserted by 
Miinter (Christl. Poes. p. 29), Mack, Co- 
nybeare, al., that the latter part of this, 
and the whole of the two following verses 
are taken from some Christian hymn. 
Though the distinctly rhythmical char- 
acter of the clauses (see the arrangement 
in Mack, who, however, erroneously in- 
cludes the first yap in the quotation), 
and the apparent occurrence of another 
specimen in 1 Tim. iii. 16, certainly fa- 
vor such a supposition; still the argu- 
mentative yap (Lachm., Tisch., with all 
the uncial mss. except K) in verse 13 
seems so far opposed to the hymnal char- 
acter of the quotation as to leave the 
supposition very doubtful. It is not no- 
ticed in Rambach’s Anthologie, Vol. 1. p. 
33, where it would scarcely have been 
omitted if the hypothesis had not seemed 
untenable. ei TUVaTENG- 
vouev] Sif we died with (Him) ;’ the 
avy obviously refers to Xp. Ino. verse 10. 
The death here alluded to must, in ac- 
cordance with the context, be simply 6 
dua Tadnudtwy Sdvaros, not also 6 dia Tov 
Aouvtpod, Chrysostom and the Greek ex- 
positors. In the very similar passage, 
Nom. vi. 8, the reference, as ver. 11 sq. 
clearly show, is ethical ; here, however, 
such a reference would seem inconsistent 
with the general current of the argument, 
and especially with ver. 12. The aorist 
must not be passed over; it marks a 
single past act that took place when we 
gave ourselves up to a life that involved 
similar exposure to sufferings and death ; 
the apostle died when he embraced the 


140 


ev" 
KaKElvos apyycETaL 74s" 


2 “RLMO T HY. 


Cuap. II. 12, 13. 


12 D> ae. , \ , > b) ft 
ei UTromévopev, Kal cupPacirevoomev” Ei apynooueSa, 
13 ef amriaToUpeD, EKElVOS TLETOS EVEL” 


2 , X € \ > , 
apyncac yar yap E€AUTOV OU dvvatat. 


lot of a daily death (ka3’. qu€pay arodvh- 
oxw, 1 Cor. xy. 31), and of a constant 
bearing about the véxpwow rod *Incod. 2 
Cor. iv. 10. guy (fiocopuer| 
‘ we shall live with (Him),’ not in an ethi- 
cal sense, but, as the antithesis necessa- 
rily requires, with physical reference to 
Christ’s resurrection (comp. éynyepucvor, 
ver. 8); by virtue of our union with Him 
in His death, we shall hereafter share 
with Him His life ; comp. Phil. iii. 10. 
12. bropévower| ‘endure,’ scil. 
with Him ; present; this was a continu- 
ing state. 
see notes on ver. 10. 
gupBactrccetvooper] ‘we shall reign 
with (Him) ;’ extension of the previous 
idea cuv(jcou. : not only shall we live, 
but be kings with Him; comp. Rom vy. 
17, viii. 17. Rev. i.6. 3uuBac. is only a 
dls Aeydu. in N. T., here and 1 Cor. iv. 
8; compare Polyearp, Phil. 5. 
apynodpesa| ‘shall deny,—‘ aut fac- 
to, aut verbo, aut etiam silentio,’ Est. ; 
compare Matth. x. 32, 33: ov« ey tots 


On the meaning of iroudvew, 


XpnoTots udvoy, GAAG Kal ev ToIs evayTias 
ai GuorBal, Chrys. The future conveys 
the idea of the ethical possibility of the 
action; compare Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 
241: we have thus in the hypothetical 
clauses, aorist, present, and future. The 
precedence of apvetoda: to amoreiy is not 
to be ascribed to the fact that ‘ abnega- 
tio fidem que fuerat extinguit,’ Beng., 
but rather to this’ fact, that a persistent 
state of unbelief (amorotuev) is far worse 
than a denial which might be (as in the 
case of St. Peter) an act committed in 
weakness and bitterly repented of ; com- 
pare Leo. The reading is not quite cer- 
tain : apvodjmeda ( Rec.) is well supported 
[DEKL; al.], but seems, on the whole, 
more probably corrected to. harmonize 


with the pres. drouévouer, than altered to 
balance apynoerat. ‘ 
13. ef amictodmer] ‘if we are un- 
believing ’’— or to preserve the paronoma- 
sia ‘are faithless, &mortol éouev (comp. 
Fritz. Rom. iii. 3),—not specifically ‘ in 
Him’ (Syr.), or ‘in His resurrection,’ 
bre avéorn (Chrys.), or ‘in His divinity,” 
bt Oeds éort (CEcum. 2),— but general- 
ly, ‘if we exhibit unbelief,’ whether as 
regards His attributes, His promises, or 
His Gospel; ‘ infidelitas positiva signifi- 
catur, que est eorum qui veritatem audi- 
tam recipere nolunt, aut semel receptam 
deserunt,’ Estius. De Wette, Wiesing. 
and others following Grotius translate 
émor. ‘untreu sind,’ ‘are unfaithful,’ 
appealing to the similar passage, Rom. 
iii. 3. This is certainly plausible on ac- 
count of the following moés, still nei- 
ther there (see especially Meyer in loc.) 
nor here is there sufficient reason for de- 
parting from the regular meaning of 
amore (Mark xvi. 11, 16, Luke xxiv. 
11, 41, Acts xxviii. 24), which, like amo- 
ria, seems always in the N. T. to imply 
not ‘untrueness,’ ‘unfaithfulness,’ but 
definitely ‘ unbelief’ This is still further 
confirmed by the species of climax, apry- 
oom., amictovmev ; see above, on ver. 12. 
miotds| ‘faithful, both in His nature 
and promises; compare Deut. vii. 9. 
Though we believe not Him and His 
promises, yet He remains unchanged in 
His faithfulness and truth; mordés éore 
kal adtdés, dpelAwy moteverSa: ev ois by 
Aéyn Kal woh, adtds &rpemtos wévov Kab 
phy GAAoLovpevos [x. 7. A.], Athan. cont. 
Arian. 111, Vol. 1. p. 377 (Paris, 1627). 
ob Stbvatai] ‘ He cannot’ deny Him- 
self, or be untrue to His own essential 
nature ; Sivara: Kad’ juas mayta 6 Ocds, 
amep Suvduevos, Tov Oeds civat, kal Tov 


Cnap. II. 14. 


Charge men ‘to avoid bab- 14 
blings which really lead to 
the subversion of faith. 
God knows his own. 


Tavta 


2 eT Orr et ¥. 


141 


UTropipvnoKe, Svapaptupopevos 


pa nr / \ na > Or 
évaTrvov ToD Kupiov pn Aoyomayety, Els ovdeV 


Follow practical religion, be meek and eschew contentions. 


GyaSds elva, kad Tod copds elvar odx etlo- 
rata, Origen, Cels. cap. 70; see also 
Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 339 
(ed. Burt.). On the aor. infin. after dv- 
vatat see notes on Eph. iii. 4. 

14, tradra bropiuy.| ‘put (them) 
in remembrance of these things,’ scil. of the 
truths mentioned in ver. 11—13; comp. 
Tit. iii. 1, 2 Pet. i. 12. The most natu- 
ral supplement to brouiuynoxe is not &A- 
Aous (Theoph., Gicumenius), but aitods 
(Syr.), whether generally ‘eos quibus 
prees,’ Bengel, or, as the meaning of 
the verb seems to suggest, ‘the faithful,’ 
those who already believe, but require to 
be reminded of these eternal truths. 
diapaptupépmevos| ‘solemnly charg- 
ing them ;’ similarly with an inf. Polyb. 
Hist. 15836 5;:ib. 32:4; 11. 15. 5: see 
notes on 1 Tim. v. 21. 

i) Aoyopayety] ‘not to contend about 
words,’ ‘not to indulge in Aoyouaxta ;’ 
1 Tim. vi. 4, where see notes. The 
reading is somewhat doubtful: Zachm. 
reads Aoyoudxe: with AC!; Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Auth.; Latin Ff.; so also Tisch. 
ed. 1, who, however, in ed. 2, 7, has (as 
it would seem rightly) restored the infin. 
with C7DEFGKL; nearly all mss. ; 
Syr. (both), Goth.; Clem., Chrysost., 
Theod., al. ; so Mill, Prolegom. p. xu1x. 
Though the change from the imper. to 
the infin. might be thought not wholly 
improbable, as the infin. might seem an 
easier reading (comp. however, ch. iv. 
2), yet a conformation of the inf. to the 
preceding and succeeding imp. seems 
equally plausible. The preponderance of 
external authority may thus be allowed 
to decide the question. If the imp. be 
adopted, a stop must be placed after Ku- 
plov. eis ovdév xphoipor] 
“(a course) useful for nothing ;’ not an 
independent clause, ‘ad nihil utile est, 


nisi, etc., Vulg., sim. Clarom., but, in 
opposition to the preceding sentence ; 
compare Mark vii. 19, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 59.9, p. 472. The reading is here 
again by no means certain ; Lachm. and 
Tisch. (ed. 7) adopt én’ ods with AC: 
17 (ém’ ovder) yap, FG); so Huther. It 
is possible that eis might have been 
changed to avoid the seeming difficulty 
of ém twice used thus contiguously, and 
the em ovderi of FG might have been a 
correction : still, it is also not improba- 
ble that the eye of the writer might have 
been caught by the following émi, and 
the substitution accidental. The MSS. 
authority [DEKL] and St. Paul’s love 
of prepositional variation (comp. notes 
on Gal. i. 1) incline us to the reading of 
the Text (Tisch. ed. 2); so De Wette 
and Wiesing. In eis ovdev the idea of 
destination is marked perhaps a_ little 
more laxly (compare Acts xvii. 21, and 
Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354), in é oddéy 
(comp. ep’ 6, Matth. xxvi. 50, scil. 7d 
kata oxdmov mpatte, Euthym.; [De- 
mosth.] Aristog. p. 779, ém Kadbv mpay- 
Ha xpyjojmos) a little more stringently. 
It is singular that xphomoy is an drat 
Aeydu. in the N. T.; etypnoros, how- 
ever, is found with eis in ch. iv. 11. 

ém) katactpooa| ‘ for the subversion,’ 
not, as it ought to be, for the edification 
(oixodouy) of the hearers; compare eis 
KaSatpeow, 2 Cor. xiii. 10. ’Em) here 
seems to include with the idea of+purpose 
and object (comp. notes on Gal. v. 13, 
and on Eph: ii. 10) that also of the resuit 
to which the Aoyouaxia inevitably led, 
‘subversionem pariunt,’ Just. The pri- 
mary object of the false teachers, in ac- 
cordance with their general character, 
might have been to convince, or to make 
gain out of the hearer (comp. Tit. i. 11), 
the result, contemplated or no, was his 


142 


2 TM OFF iy. 


Cuap. II.. 15, 


¥ 9 \ a A lal > uy A 15 a, 50 \ 
XPnoLLOV, €7Tb kataotpopy TMV AKOVOVTOD. OTTOVOACOV CEAUTOV 


SoKLWOV TapacTHaaL TO Dew, EpyaTnv aveTrainyvyTov, opSoromovv- 
Td | , €p U/] our 


kataotpopy. ‘These ideas of purpose and 
result are frequently somewhat: blended 
in this use of ém with the dative ; comp. 
ém) BAdBn, Xenoph. Mem. 11. 3. 19, the 
formula ryy ém Savdtw, Arrian, Anab. 
vil. 8. 7 (Xenoph. 7b. 1. 6. 10), and see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. c, p. 351, Bernhardy, 
Synt. v. 24, p. 251. 

15. 54Ktuov] ‘approved,’ one who 
can stand the test (comp. ddxmoy apy- 
piov, Poll. Onomast. 111. 86), just as 45d- 
xiwos (ch. iii. 8, Tit. i. 16) is one who 
cannot (compare Rom. xiv. 18, xvi. 10, 
1 Cor. xi. 19, al.), explained more fully 
in the following clause, but obviously 
not to be joined with épydarny (Mack). 
The termination -i-wos (the first part of 
which points to quality, the second to 
action, Donalds. Cratyl. § 258) is annex- 
ed according to somewhat differing anal- 
ogies ; comp. Buttm. Gr. § 113. 13. 
TapactHiaoat TG Oe@| ‘ exhibere Deo,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.,; compare Rom. vi. 13, 
1 Cor. viii. 8, Eph. v. 27: the assertion 
of Tholuck (on Rom. J. ¢.) that mapiord- 
vew Tivt TL is ‘jemandem etwas zu frevem 
Gebrauch vorlegen,’ cannot be substan- 
tiated; it is simply ‘sistere, exhibere, 
alicui aliquid’ (Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 
403), the context defining the application 
and modifying the translation. 
épyatnv] ‘a workman, not perhaps 
without reference to the laborious na- 
ture of the work, the épyov evayyedoT 0d, 
ch. iv. 5, al.: similarly, but with a bad 
reference, 2 Cor. xi. 13, Phil. iii. 2; 
compare Deyling, Obs. Vol. rv. 2, p. 
623. 

gi not ashamed ;’ Gm. Aeydu.: not with 
“any active or middle force (6 épydrns od- 


a&vetwataxuytoyr| 


dev aioxiverar mpdtrew, Chrys.) with ref- 
erence to feeling shame in the cause of 
the Gospel (Theoph., Gicum. ; compare 
By emaoxuvdys, ch. i. 8), but passively, 
‘non pudefactum,’ Bengel ;) comp. Phil. 


i. 20, ev ovdert ain xuvSjcoua. 

dpSoropmovvtral ‘cutting, laying out, 
straightly,’ as a road, ete. ; compare The- 
odoret, émaivotuey Kal Tav yewpyav Tous 
evdelas Tas avAakas avatéuvovtas. Va- 
rious interpretations have been assigned 
to this passage, in most of which the idea 
of réuvew,—e. g. Téeuve TH voda, Kal Te 
roiita éxxowre, Chrysost.; ‘ translatio 
sumpta ab illa legali victimarum sec- 
tione,’ Beza; ‘acsi pater alendis filiis 
panem in frusta secando distribuat,’ Cal- 
vin,—is unduly pressed and arbitrarily 
explained. The real emphasis, however, 
rests rather on the épdés ; compare dpso- 
modeiv, Gal. ii. 14, and the force of the 
adjective in kavotouery, Plato, Legg. vit. 
p-. 797 B, al.; but this again must not be 
pressed to the complete exclusion of the 
verbal element, as in Greg. Naz. Orat. 11. 
p- 23, where op%or. is nearly = dpsas 
6devew, see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 370. 
Thus, then, it will be most correct to ad- 
here closely to the primary meaning ‘ to 
cut in a straight line’ (Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s. v.), and to regard it as a meta- 
phor from laying out a road (compare 
Proy. iii. 6, iva dp3otouf Tas 6d0vs cov), 
or drawing a furrow (Theod.), the merit 
of which is to consist in the straightness 
with which the work of cutting or laying 
out is performed. The word of truth is, 
as it were, an 6dds (comp. De Wette), 
which is to be laid out straightly and 
truly. The meaning is rightly retained 


Cia a Vv ie 
by Syr. La] po5 jo [preedi 


cans recte] and Vulg.. ‘ recte tractantem 
verbum veritatis,’ but the metaphor is 
thus obscured. For the various interpre- 
tations of this passage, see Wolf, in /oc. 
Vol. rv. p. 513 sq., and especially Dey- 
ling, Obs’ Vol. 1v. 2, exere. 117. 10 sq., 
p. 618 sq., where this expression is very 
elaborately investigated. THS GAD: 


Cuap. II.-16, 17. 


aT LM OUP HY. 


148 


“Ta TOV Neyo THS auipelas. 16 tas 8é BeBnrovs xevopovias yao 


Taco.. él TAElov yap ™poKorrovaw aceBelas. 1 Kal 6 NOyos avTa@V 


Selas| ‘of Truth,’ not the gen. of appo- 
sition, but substantic ; see notes on Eph. 
“i. 13, and compare Scheuerlein, Synt. § 
12. 1, p. 82. 
16. kevopwrvias| ‘babdlings ;’ only 
here and 1 Timothy vi. 20, where see 
notes. 


Srom,’ —= \ {dal [subduc te a] 


Syr., mepipevye, Hesych., —not ‘cohibe, 
se. ne alterius grassarentur’ (Raphel, 
Beza, and even Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 
Vol. 11. p. 673), a meaning not lexically 
tenable. It occurs in the N. T. (in the 
present form) only here and Tit. iii. 9 ; 
comp. Lucian, Hermot. § 86, éxrpawjco- 
wa Kal mepiothooua, but not Polyb. 
fiist. 111. 84. 11 (cited by Raphel), as 
there the verb has its usual meaning. 
The expression mepiloracSal te or twa 
(the latter [in the sing.] condemned by 
Lucian, Pseudos. § 4, and Thom. M. s. 
vy. p. 708, ed. Bern., but defended by Lo- 
beck, Soph. Ajax, 82, p. 109), in the 
sense of making a circuit so as to avoid,’ 
—surely not ‘to hedge one’s self in,’ 
Peile, — occurs occasionally in later wri- 
ters ; see examples in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 
II. p. 814, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. 
II. p. 846, and compare Dorville, Chari- 
ton, 1. 13, p. 136, by whom this use of 
meptior. is fully illustrated. 


mepitatago] ‘withdraw 


mpokowovaty] ‘ they will make advance,’ 
scil. ‘the false teachers,’ those who utter 
the kevopwvias (compare aitay, ver. 17, 
and chap. ii. 9, 13), not the revopovia 
themselves, Luther, al. Observe the fu- 
ture, which shows that the error of the 
false teachers in its most developed state 
had not yet appeared; see notes on 1 
Tim.i.3. The form mpoxérrw, though 
condemned by Lucian, Pseudos. § 5, is 
rightly maintained by Thom. M. and 
Phrynichus: the subst. tpoxor) is how- 
ever indefensible, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 


15. It is used in the N. Test. de bono 
(Luke ii. 52), de malo (here, and ch. iii. 
9, 13) and de neutro (Rom. xiii. 12). 
aceBelas, ‘of impiety, or, better to 
preserve the antithesis to eia€B., ‘of un- 
godliness ;’ genit. dependant on mAetov, 
and either the gen. of the point of view 
(Sheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129), or more 
probably the gen. materi@, as in the gen. 
after toito, TocovTo, Kk. T. A. ; 
Joseph. Bell. v1. 
covtov mapavouias (De W.), and see Krii- 
ger, Sprachl. § 47.10. 2. In such cases, 
as Kriiger observes, the gen. is com- 
monly anarthrous, and a preposition (as 
here) not unfrequently precedes. 

17. yayypatva] 
eating sore ;’ according to Galen on Hip- 
pocr. de Artic. Vol. x11. p. 407, interme- 
diate between the @Aeyuov) and the oga- 
kedos, and leading the way to the latter. 
The expression vou)y eke (* pastionem 
habebit,’ Erasm.) and the deriv. of yayyp. 
[ypdw, ypalyw, connected with Sanscr. 
gras, ‘devorare,’ compare Pott, Etym. 
Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 278] both point to the 
evil as being extensive in its nature (com- 
pare Gal. v. 9, and notes in luc.) rather 
than intensive (Mack), though it is not 
improbable that the yay- was primarily 
an intensive reduplication; see Bopp, 
Grammar, p. 569. So also distinctly, 
though somewhat paraphrastically, Syr. 

Lys? 

Tbe. sos —) seul 2 
multos|; compare Ovid, Metam. 11. 825, 
‘solet immedicabile cancer Serpere, et 
illeesas vitiatis addere partes.’ The er- 
ror of these teachers was spreading, and 
the apostle foresees that it was still fur- 
ther to spread, and to corrupt the Ephe- 
sian community to a still more lamenta- 
ble extent ; ‘res miserabili experimento 
notior quam ut pluribus verbis declarari 
debeat,’ Estius. Tuev. Kak 


compare 


2.3, mpotKopay «is To- 


¢ 


“a gangrene, ‘an 


[apprehendet 


144 


2AM OF EL Y 


Cnap. II. 18, 19. 


e / \ 4 ia b e , \ I 18 A 
ws yayypaiva vouny é€et. wv éotw' Twevatos Kat Pidytos, ™ oitwes 


TeEpl THY GANELaY HOTOYNTAaY, éyoVTES THY avadcTacW dn yeyo- 


id \ U4 , ¢ / 
véval, Kal avatpérovow THv Twev Tictw. ™” “O pévTor oTepeds 


@{i.] Two false teachers of whom noth- 
ing certain is known; Vitringa (Obs. 
Sacr. iv. 9, Vol. 1. p. 926) thinks that 
they were Jews, and probably Sadducees. 
The latter supposition seems very doubt- 
ful; compare next note, and Burton, 
Bampt. Lect. p. 135 sq. Hymenzus is 
probably the same as the false teacher 
mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 20; see notes zn 
loc. 

18. ofrives| ‘men who,’ pointing to 
them with a very faint explanatory force 
as members of a class ; see notes on Gal. 
ii. 4, 
k. T. A.] ‘as concerning the truth, missed 
? sol Tim. vi. 21. On jordx, 
compare notes on 1 Tim. i. 6, and on the 
use of epi, notes on 2b. i. 19. 
Adgyovtes xk. 7. A. ‘saying that the re- 
surrection has already taken place :’ char- 
acteristic and distinguishing feature of 
their error. All recent commentators 
very pertinently adduce Iren. Her. 11. 
31, ‘esse resurrectionem a mortuis agni- 
tionem ejus que ab ipsis dicitur verita- 
tis ;? Tertull. de Resurr. 19, ‘ asseverantes 
aos resurrectionem eam vindicandam qua 
quis adita [additi, Rhen., Seml.| veritate 
redanimatus et revivificatus Deo, igno- 


wep) Thy GANA. 


their aim: 


rantiz morte discussa, velut de sepulchro 
veteris hominis eruperit;’ Augustine, 
Fpist. 119, ‘nonnulli......arbitrati sunt 
jam factam esse resurrectionem, nec ul- 
lam ulterius in fine temporum esse spe- 
randam.’ These quotations both verify 
the apostle’s prediction, and serve to de- 
fine with some show of probability, the 
specific nature of the error of Hymenzus 
and Philetus. The false asceticism which 
is so often tacitly alluded to and con- 
demned in these Epistles, led very prob- 
ably to an undue contempt for the body 
(developed fully in the ‘hylic’ theory of 
the Gnostics, Theod. Her, 1. 7, compare 


Neander, Hist. of Ch. Vol. 11. p. 116, 
Clark), to false views of the nature of 
death (see Tertull. /. c.), and thence to 
equally false views of the resurrection : 
death and resurrection were terms which 
had with these false teachers only a spir- 
itual meaning and application: ‘ they 
allegorized away the doctrine, and turned 
all into figure and metaphor,’ Waterland 
Doct. of Trin. 1v. Vol. 111. p. 459. Grin- 
field (Schol. Hellen. p. 603) cites Polye. 
Philipp. 7, but there the heterodoxy seems 
of a more fearful and antinomian charae- 
ter. The error of Marcion to which 
Baur (Pastoralbr. p. 38) here finds an 
allusion, was of a completely different 
kind ; ‘Marcion in totum carnis resur- 
rectionem non admittens, et soli animz 
salutem repromittens, non qualitatis sed 
substantize facit queestionem,’ Tertullian 
Mure. v.10. The reference to the re- 
newal of generations é« ma:doroitas (The- 
odoret), or to the resurrection at the cru- 
cifixion, Matth. xxvii. 52 (Schoettg.), 
searccly need be alluded to. Further 
notices of this early heresy will be found 
in Walsh, Gesch. der Ketz. Vol. 1. p. 
129, Burton, Bampt. Lect. Note 59, p. 
428; compare Usteri, Lehrb, 11. 2 B, p. 
344. avatpémovaty 
k. 7. A.] ‘subvert the faith of some;’ see . 
Tit. i. 11. We cannot safely infer from 
this use of tiv that the number of the 
subverted was small (compare Chrysost. 
ov mavTwy GAAd Two); Twes is simply 
«sundry persons,’ the old German ‘et- 
welche,’ Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 16,14; 
comp. Meyer on Rom. ii. 3. 

19. wévrou| ‘however, nevertheless ;’ 
this compound particle, — which prima- 
rily conveys ‘ majorem quandam asseve- 
rationem’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11, p. 
663), and, as its composition shows, 
unites both confirmation (uty) and re- 


GHar. Ii. 19. 


SP EMCO a 3 


145 


fal cal v \ an 4 
Sewérdvos Tod Ocod eornxev, Exov tiv odhpayida ta’tny "Eyvw 
fo) t a 
Kupuos tovs évtas avtod, Kat “AtrootnTw amd adiKias Tas 6 OVvo- 


striction (rot), “certe quidem’ (Hartung, 
Partik. Vol. 1. p. 593).— frequently, as 
in the present case, involves an opposi- 
tion to a preceding cluuse, and meets a 
possible objection ; ‘though some may 
be subverted, yet assuredly the firm foun- 
dation of God stands unshaken as ever ;’ 
‘quamvis quorundam subvertatur fides, 
non tamen fundamentum Dei,’ Estius. 
The particle only occurs here in St. 
Paul’s Epistles, five times in St. John 
(ch. iv. 27, vii. 13, xii. 42, xx. 5, xxi. 4), 
once in St. James (ch. ii. 8), and once 
in Si. Jude (ver. 8). As a general rule, 
pevrot is perhaps most correctly printed 
as one word, as in Lachm., Tisch., espe- 
cially when other enclitics are joined 
with it; see Ellendt, Ler. Soph. Vol. 11. 
p- 80. oTep Peper. TOV 
@codi| ‘the firm foundation of God ;’ 
i.e. ‘laid by Him,’ not so much a pos- 
sessive gen. as a gen. auctoris or originis, 
see Scheuerl. Synt. § 17.1, p. 125, com- 
pared with p. 115, and with notes on 1 
Thess. i. 6. It is unnecessary to recount 
the different and very arbitrary interpre- 
tations which this expression has receiv- 
ed. The only satisfactory interpretation 
is that adopted by Est. 1, Tirin. (up. 
Pol. Syn.), and now nearly all modern 
commentators, according to which the 
Sener. Tod Ocod is the Church, —not 
merely the orepeal Wuxat (Chrysostom), 
the amepitperro: (Cicum.), viewed sepa- 
rately, and in contrast with the subverted 
(comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
492, Bohn), but collectively, the éxan- 
It is here 
called a SeuéAuos, not ‘ per metonymian’ 
for oixos, Coray, al., but (a) to mark the 
Church of Christ and His apostles as a 
foundation placed in the world on which 
the whole future oixodouy rests (compare 
Eph. ii. 20 sq.) ; and (b) to convey the 
idea of its firmness, strength, and solid- 
19 


cia trd Ocod TeSeweAtwmern 


ity ; compare especially 1 Tim. iii. 15. 
On SeuéA. compare notes on 1 Tim. vi. 
19. Notices of the various .aberrant in- 
terpretations will be found in De W. in 
loc. €x wr] ‘seeing it hath;’ 
part., with a very faint causal force, illus- 
trating the previous declaration: comp. 
Donalds. Gr. § 615. THY 
oppayida tavTny] ‘this seal,’ i.e, 
” compare Rey. 
14, where each Seuédws had the 
name of an apostle inscribed thereon. 
There may possibly be, as De Wette 
suggests, an allusion to Deut. vi. 9, xi. 
20. The term odpayida is used rather 
than émrypaphy to convey the idea of its 
solemn, binding, and valid character. 
Of the two inscriptions, the first éyvw 
xk. 7. A. seems certainly an allusion to 
Numb. xvi. 5, éyvyw 6 Ocbs Tovs dytas av- 
tov |Heb. 4454 ], and is in the language 
of grave consolation, John x. 14,27; *He 
knoweth, not necessarily ‘novit amanter,’ 
Beng.,(compare notes on Gal. iv. 9) who 
are His true servants, and will separate 
them from those who are not.’ On the 
practical aspects of this declaration, com- 
pare Taylor, Life of Christ, 111. 13, dise. 
16, and the brief but consolatory remarks 
of Jackson, Creed, x11.6.3. The second 
kal amoorT. x.t A.is possibly in contin- 
ued allusion to Numb. xvi. 26, amooxic- 


‘impression, inscription ; 
XSI 


Snre ard Tov TKNYaY TOY AVP. TOV TKAN- 
pay rovTwy, though expressed in a wider 
and more general form (compare Isaiah 
lii. 11) and is in the language of warning. 


mo 

6 dvopda wy] ‘who nameth ;’ not (02 
[qui vocat] Syr. ‘qui invocat’ Wahl, but, 
‘quinominat,’ Vulg.(misquoted by Bez.), 
Goth.,—scil. as his Lord and God, ‘ qui 
rogatus cujus sit disciplinz Christum no- 
minat ut magistrum,’ Grot.; compare 
Isaiah xxvi. 13, Képie éxtés cou &AAov 
ovk ofSauev. Td dvoMd Gov dvoudCouer. 


146 


2 TIMOTHY: 


Cuap. II. 20, 21. 


, Yoo K I 20 2 7 Be ea) ciency) L 
palwv To ovowa Kupiov. €v peyadyn O€ OLKL@ OUK EoTL [CvOY 


, an Ay 49: n > \ A 4 % es , Va 
oKEUN Ypvoa Kat apyupa, adda Kal EVLA Kal OoTpaKWa, Kal a 


‘ > \ ray \ ’ “ / 
Mev els TLYuny & O€ Eis aTLpiaV" 


&5inlas] ‘unrighteousness ,’ the oppo- 
site of Sinatoovvn, Aristot. Ihet. 1. 9. 7, 
joined by Plato, Gorg. p. 477 c, with 
ciuraca Wuxis movnpia. In its Christian 
usage and application, it is similar in 
meaning to, but of wider reference than, 
avoula, compare 1 John v.17; ‘ adiucla 
de quacunque improbitate dicitur, qua- 
tenus 7@ dixalw repugnat,’ Tittmann, 
Synon. 1. p. 48; as Sikaoctvn is ouva- 
ywyh Kat Evoois mdytwy Tav KaAa@y Ka 
ayaxa@v (Chrys. Caten. in vob 1.), so ab 
«ta is the union and accumulation of all 
that is the reverse ; comp. notes on Tit. 
ii. 14. 

20. 5é is certainly not ‘for’ (Bloom- 
field), but, with its proper antithetical 
force, notices a tacit objection which 
the implied statement in the last clause 
of the preceding verse, namely, ‘ that 
there are &icor in the Church of Christ,’ 
might be thought to suggest: this it 
dilutes by showing it was really in ac- 
cordance with the counsels and will of 
God ; ‘ the Church is indeed intrinsically 
holy, but in a large house,’ etc.; comp. 
notes on Gul. iii. 11. The connection 
and current of the apostle’s thought will 
be best recognized, if it be observed that 
in ver. 19 the Church is regarded more 
as an invisible, in the present verse more 
as a visible community: on the true im- 
port and proper application of these 
terms, see Jackson, Creed, x11. 7. 6, and 
Field, Book of the Church, 1. 10, p. 14. 
év peyaaAn oikla] ‘ma large house ;’ 
observe the epithet, and its position, 
Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, p. 564. The cikia 
is not the world (Chrys., Theoph ), but, 
in continuation of the previous image, 
the visible Church of Christ (Cypr. Zp. 
55); the apostle changes, however, the 
term SeueAios, which marked the inward 
and essential character of the Church, 


21 


a5 S| ? , € \ 
€av OvyY TL exkasapn €QAUTOV 


into olxia, which serves better to portray 
it in its visible and outward aspect. The 
Church was peydAn, it was like a net of 
wide sweep (cayjvn, Matth. xiii. 47) 
that included in it something of every 
kind ; see especially, Field, Book of the 
Church, 1. 7 8q., p. 11 sq., Pearson, 
Creed, Art. rx. Vol. 1. p. 405 (ed Bur- 
ton), and Hooker, Kecl. Pol. 111. 1. 8. 
oKevn xXpuca x.T.A.] ‘vessels of gold 
and silver.” By this and the following 
metaphorical expressions the genuine 
and spurious members of the Church are 
represented as forming two distinct class- 
es, each of which, as the terms xpuca, 
apyvpa and again &A. and doTpdk. seem 
to imply, may involve different degrees 
and gradations ; the former the oxevy eis 
Ttyuhv, who are called by a ‘ vocatio in- 
terna,’ and are united in heart to the 
Church ; the latter the oxedn eis atiutay, 
who are called by a ‘ vocatio mere exter- 
na,’ und who pertain not to the ‘ compa- 
ges domus’ (August. de Bapt. v11. 99, 
—a chapter that will repay consulting), 
but belong to it merely outwardly and in 
name; comp. Jackson, Creed, x11. 7.1 
sq.. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 492 
(Bohn), and on the whole subject, esp. 
the great work of Field, supr. cit., partic- 
ularly Book 1. ch. 6—11. Thus then 
the tyuy and arta have no reference to 
the honor or dishonor that redound to 
the oikia or to the oixodeomdrns (comp. 
Mack, Matth.), but, as in Rom. ix. 21 
(see Meyer in /oc.), simply appertain to, 
and qualitatively characterize, the vessels 
themselves. Moller (p. 106) finds in this 
image thus left to Timothy’s spiritual dis- 
cernment (see ver. 4 sq.) a mark of genu- 
ineness ; a forger would have hardly left 
it thus unexpanded and unexplained. 

21 édy ody rts x.7.A.] An encour- 
aging and consolatory exhortation, gen- 


-C@nap. II. 21,.22. 


pe De OTE, 


147 


y A > , e 
.aT0 TOUTM@V, ETAL oKELOS Els TYULNVY, HYLacpEVOY, EVYpnaTOV TO 


SerroTn, eis Tav Epyov ayayov nToiwacpévoy. 


2 Tas d€ vewTepi- 


N ? / a él be p>) 7 / b am ey.’ 
Kas emrisupias pevye, Olwke O€ OiKaLooUYyY, TidTW, ayaTrny, Eipnynv 


eral in form, yet not without special ref- 
erence to Timothy; édy tis = “si quis, 
verbi gratid, Timotheus,’ Beng. 
éexkadsapn éavt.] ‘shall have purged 
himself from, ‘ expurgarit,’ Beza; not 
mavTeAG@s kaddpn, Chrys., but (in sensu 
pregnanti) ‘ purgando sese exierit de nu- 
mero horum,’ Beng.,—the ex referring 
to those whose communion was to be 
left, compare verse 19, admoorjtw. The 
verb éxxad. occurs again in 1 Cor. vy. 7, 
where the force of the prep., in allusion 
to the ‘ purging-out’ from the houses of 
the maraa (dun (see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 
I. 598), is fully apparent. 
(comp. Chrys.) calls attention to ris 
yveuns einptnuevny thy Tod Kpeittovos 
aipeouy, here fully conveyed by the active 
verb with the reflexive pronoun (Beng.), 
and very unconvincingly denied by Beza. 
On the great practical principle involved 
in this verse,—‘ no communion with im- 
pugners of fundamentals,’ see the sound 
remarks of Waterland, Doctr. of Trin. 
ch. 1v. Vol. 111. p. 456 sq. 

amd TovTwy seems clearly to refer to 
& eis atyulay, 7.e. the person included in 
that simile,—not to the BeBnAous kevo- 
gwvias mentioned in ver. 16 (Est.), nor 
to aduxclas, ver. 19 (Coray), which latter 
seems avery far-fetched reference. In 
using the terms & eis arm, the thoughts 
of the apostle were in all probability 
dwelling on the pevdodiddoxador to whom 
he had been recently alluding. 

eis Tiuiy is not to be connected with 
jytacuevoy, Syr., Chrys., Lachm., Leo 
(who, however, adopts in his text a con- 
trary. punctuation), but, as the previous 
connection in ver. 20 obviously suggests, 
immediately with oxedos, the three defin- 
ing clauses more fully explaining the 
meaning of the term. 

etxpnortor| ‘serviceable,’ ch. iv. 11, 


Theodoret 


Philem. 11; apa exeiva &ypnota, ei Kad 
Twa xpelay emrede?, Chrysostom. The 
evxpnoria, as the following clause shows, 
is ‘per opera bona, quibus et suz et ali- 
orum saluti ac necessitati ad Dei gloriam 
subserviant,’ Estius. eis 
wav Epyov Kk.7.A.| ‘prepared for every 
good work ;’ eis, as usual, referring to the 
ultimate end and objects contemplated 
in the preparation ; compare Rey. ix. 7, 
and Winer, Gr,§ 49.a, p.354. Though 
opportunities might not always present 
themselves for an exercise of the éroia- 
ota, yet it was there against the time of 
need ; Kav wh mpattn, GAN duws emith- 
derdv eort, Sextixdv, Chrys. 

22. ras vewtepixas éemid.| ‘the 
lusts of youth,’ ‘ juvenilia desideria,’ Vul- 
gate, Clarom.; certainly not ‘ cupidita- 
tes novarum rerum,’ Salmas, nor ‘ acres,’ 
“vehementes cupid.,’ Loesner, Obs. p. 
417; see especially Pearson, Vind. Ign. 
(ad lect.), Vol. 1. p. 7 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 
The previous indirect exhortation is now 
continued in a direct form both negative- 
ly and positively: the 6¢ (which must 
not be omitted as in Auth. Version, Co- 
nyb.) marks the contrast between vewr. 
The 
emiusuutar do not merely refer to ropveia, 
but as the Greek commentators remark, 
include macay éemiSuutay &romoy (Chrys.), 


éemid. and Eromacia eis Tay K.T.A. 


Tpuphy, yeAwtos duetplav, Sdtay Keviy, 
kat Ta TovTOLs Tpocduoia (Theod.), in a 
word, all the lusts and passions which 
particularly characterize youth, but which 
of course might be felt by one who is not 
a youth in the strictest sense of the term. 
On the comparative youth of Timothy, 
comp. notes on 1 Tim. v. 12. 

diwe| ‘follow after.’ So. with the same 
subst., 1 Tim. vi. 11; comp. also Rom. 
1x, 30) 51, x11 13, xiv. 19, 1-Cor: ximaay 
1 Thessal. v.15 (Heb. xii..14), where 


148 2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. II. 28, 24. 


META TOV éTTLKaOULEVOY Tov Kupiov ex KaSapas Kapdias. * Tas 
5é wwpas Kal arradedtovs EntHoews Tapattov, eid@s OTe yervoow 


paxas *4 SovAov 5€ Kupiov ov dei payerSat, adr’ irrvov eivat 


Bide Heb. [574 Prov. xxi. 21, Psalm 
xxxiv. 15] is used by St. Paul in the 
same characteristic way with abstract 
substantives ; the correlative term is Ka- 
TadapBdvey, Rom. ix. 30, Phil. iii. 12. 
On diac. and wiotis, see notes on 1 
Tim, vi. 11: Grav Aéyn ‘ Sikaroovvny’ 
voet bAas Tas apetas, Coray. 

eiphynyv mustbe joined with wera tev 
émikad., not with Siwxe, Heydenr. : com- 
pare Heb. xii. 14, elpnyny didkere meta 
mavrwy, It denotes not merely ‘ peace’ 
in the ordinary sense, 7. e. absence of con- 
tention, but ‘concordiam illam spiritua- 
lem’ (Caly.) which unites together all 
who call upon (1 Cor. i. 2) and who love 
their Lord ; comp. Rom. x. 12, Eph. iv. 3. 
ék Kkadapas kapd. (see notes on 1 
Tim. i. 5) belongs to émxad. tov Kup., 
and tacitly contrasts the true believers 
with the false teachers whose xapdia like 
their voids and cuvetdnous (Tit. i. 15) was 
not KaSapa. but pemaowern. 

23. Tas mwpas «. 7. A.] ‘the foolish 
and ignorant questions’ which the false 
teachers especially love to entertain and 
propound; compare Tit. iii. 9. "Azaidev- 
Tos (an Gm. Aeydu. in N. T.) is not ex- 
actly ‘sine disciplina,’ Vulg. (compare 
Syr.), but, in accordance with its usual 
lexical meaning (Suid. ayéynros, Hesych. 
&uadhs), ‘indoctus,’ and thence, as here, 
‘ineptus,’ ‘insulsus,’ Goth. ‘dval6ns’ 
[cognate with ‘dull’]: compare Prov. 
vill. 5, xv. 14, and especially Ecclus. x. 
3, where BaotAevs aratdevtos stands in a 
kind of contrast to xpitijs codds, ver. 1; 
compare Winer, Gr. § 16. 3, p. 88. 
¢ntHaoers| ‘questions (of controversy) ;’ 
see notes on 1 Tim.i. 4. On mapaitod 
see notes 7b. iv. 7. eidws 
Ste «7. A.] ‘knowing (as thou dost) 
that they engender contentions ;? compare 
1 Tim. vi. 4, €& dv yiverar Epis, Tit. iii. 


9, uaxas vourds. The use of udxn in 
such applications is more extended than 
that of méAeuos ; ‘ dicitur autem udxeo- 
Sa: de quicunque contentione etiam ani- 
morum etiamsi non ad verbera et czedes 
[wéAeuov] pervenerit,’ Tittm. Synon. 1. 
p- 66: compare Eustath. on Hom. Jil. 1. 
177, waxeTat mev Tis Kal Adyos, ws Kal 7 
Aoyouaxia Snot. Both terms are joined 
in James iv. 1, but there the conflicts are 
not, as here, upon abstract questions be- 
tween rival teachers or rival sects, but 
turn upon the rights of property, com- 
pare ver. 2,3. It need scarcely be said 
that wax7 has no connection with AK- or 
aixun (Pape, Worterb. s. v.); the most 
plausible derivation seems Sanser. maksh, 
‘irasci’ (x=ksh), see Benfey, Wurzellex. 
Vol. 11. p. 42; ‘si recte suspicamur, 
propria ab initio illi verbo fuit notio con- 
tentionis seu impetus quo quis se in 
alium infert,’ Tittmann, Synon. 1. c. 

24. SodAov Kup.| ‘a servant (so 
Copt.) of the Lord,—not merely in a 
general reference (comp. Eph. vi. 6, 1 
Pet. ii. 16), but, as the context seems to 
require, with a more special reference to 
Timothy’s office as a bishop and evange- 
list, Tov emicxomoy Aéye, Coray ; comp. 
Tit. i. 1, James i. 1, al. 

Rmtov| ‘gentle,’ ‘mild,’ (‘mitem,’ Cla- 
romanus, not very happily changed into 
‘mansuetum,’ Vulg.), both in words and 
demeanor; only found here and (if we 
adopt the reading of Rec., Tisch.) in 1 
Thess. ii. 7, Suvdwevor ev Bapel eivat..... 
eyevnrnuey Hm. ~Haos (derived prob- 
ably from “EIQ, comp. ma pdpuaka, 
Hom. Jil. 1v. 218, al., with primary ref. 
perhaps to healing by incantation) ap- 
pears to denote an outward mildness and 
gentleness, especially in bearing with 
others : ‘mpgos (when not in its specific 
scriptural sense, compare notes on Eph. 


Cuap. II. 25. 


Fei NS 


149 


ty ’ 5 5 ’ a, , 95 2 fe 5 / 
Tpos TTAVTAS, OLOAKTLKOV, aveEiKakor, eV TPavuTyTL TALOEVOVTA 


\ >’ 8 / . / 8 , > lal e (3) \ / > 
TOUS aVTl LATUYEMEVOUS, #1) TTOTE O@7) AUTOLS O €OS PETAVOLAV ELS 


iv. 2) ipsam animi lenitatem indicat, 
#mios qui hance lenitatem in aliis ferendis 
monstrat,’ Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 140. The 
subst. nmd77s is placed between jpepdrns 
and giAavSpemia in Philo, Vol. 11. p. 
267. 5.danxtixdy| ‘apt to 
teach ;’ ready to teach rather than con- 
tend: see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 2. There 
seems no reason {with De W.) to give 
didakT. here a different shade of mean- 
ing ; the servant of the Lord was not to 
be merely ‘lehrreich,’ but ‘lehrhaftig’ 
(Luther), ready and willing audxws mpo- 
obepe Ta Seta TaSevuata, Theodoret. 
avetixakov| ‘patient of wrong, ‘ for- 
bearing :? avekixakia, 7 avox) Tov Kakov, 
Hesych. ; comp. Wisdom ii. 19, where 
it is in connection with émeixeia, and see 
Dorvill. Charit. v111. 4, p. 616. 

25. mpavtyr.| ‘ meekness:’ see notes 
on Gal. v. 23, and on Eph. iv. 2. Ev 
mpait. is obviously not to be connected 
with dveégix., as Tynd.. Cran., Gen., but 
with the part., defining the manner in 
which the radevew is to be conducted. 
Tous ‘ those 
who are contending against lim ;’ ‘ those 
that are of different opinions from us,’ 
Hammond, ‘qui diversam sententiam 
fovent,’ Tittmann,—who distinguishes 
between ay7i5., the perhaps stronger ay- 
TiAeyovtes, Tit. i. 9, and the more decid- 
ed dyrTibixor; see Synon. 11. p.9. The 
allusion is not to positively and wilfully 
heretical teachers as’to the vooodvtas ep! 
(thoes (1 Tim. vi. 4), those of weak 
faith and morbid love of av7idécers (The- 
od.), and controversial questions. The 
definite heretic was to be admonished, 
and, in case of stubbornness, was to be 
left to himself (Tit. iii. 10); such oppo- 
nents as the present were to be dealt 
with gently, and to be won back to the 
truth : compare Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 343, note (Bohn), 


avTtdtaTidsepevous| 


Bh woTe K.T.A.] ‘if perchance at any 
time God might grant to them,’ etc. ; ‘ in 
the hopes that,’ etc., see Green, Gramm. 
p-. 83. Mz is here used, somewhat irreg- 
ularly, in its dubitative sense ; moré, with 
which it is united, is not otiose, but ‘ ad- 
fert suam indefiniti temporis significa- 
tionem’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 674), 
and while marking clearly the complete 
contingency of the change, still leaves 
the faint hope that at some time or other 
such a change may, by God’s grace, be 
wrought within; @o7e éxeivwy pdvor api- 
oTacia xph, wept av Suvdueda capes 
amopivacsa, kal imep @y TeTeioueda STL 
ovS bv étioty yévntat, meTacThooyTat, 
Chrys The optative 5¢y (see notes on 
Eph. i. 17), with ACD!FG, al., is not 
here treated simply as a subjunctive 
(Wiesing.), but seems used to convey 
an expression of hope and subjective pos- 
sibility ; compare Winer, Gir. § 42, 4. ¢, 
p- 346. On the construction of the dubi- 
tative wf, see the good article in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. s.v. c, Vol. 11. p. 226, and 
on pnmote, compare Viger, Jdiot. p. 457, 
but observe that the comment is not by 
Hermann, as cited by Alford in loc. 

MeTavoray| ‘repentance,’ — certainly 
not ‘ conversion from paganism to Chris- 
tianity’ (Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 16, 
Vol. 11. p. 163), but ‘pcenitentiam ’ in its 
usual and proper sense, scil. an dméota- 
owan adiKcias, and an éemortpopiy mpds 
@cdy (see especially Taylor on Repent. 11. 
1). a change of heart wrought by God’s 
grace within. It may be observed that 
metavoéw (only 2 Cor. xii. 21) and mera- 
voia (only Rom, ii. 4, 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10) 
occur less frequently in St. Paul’s Epis- 
tles than we might otherwise have imag- 
ined, being not unfrequently partially 
replaced by kataAAdoow and katadAayn, 
terms peculiar to the apostle ; see Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11.1, 1, p. 102, and comp. Tay- 


150 


> fy! 
erlyvoow adnXelas, 


o2) eNO EL Ye. 


Cuap. II. 26. 


6 Kal avavippwow ex THs TOD SuaBorov 


t > is e ’ > la) > X 2 / I 
mayioos, Cwypnucvos UT’ avTov eis TO éxelvoy SéAnua. 


lor, Repent. 11. 2. 11. emi yyvw- 
- ov arAnsd.| ‘( full) knowledge of the 
truth,’ i.e. of gospel-truth, Beza: the 
Gospel is the Truth kar’ éfoxjv, it con- 
tains all the principles and elements of 
practical truth ; see Reuss, Theol. Chret. 
Iv. 8, Vol. ir. p. 82. The omission of 
the article before aAnSefas is due to the 
principle of correlation, the article before 
extyv. being omitted in consequence of 
the prep.; see Middleton, Art. 111. 3. 7, 
p- 49 (ed. Rose). 

26 Kal avavhWwor x.7. A.] ‘and 
they may return to soberness out of the snare 
of the devil, being held captive by him to do 
His | God's} will.’ The difficulty of this 
verse rests entirely in the construction. 
Of the various interpretations, three de- 
serve consideration ; (a) that of Auth. 
Ver., Vulg., Syr. (apparently), followed 
by De W., Huth., Alf., and the majority 
of modern commentators, according to 
which airod and éxetvov both refer to the 
Tov diaBddrov ; (b) that of Wetst., Beng., 
al., according to which avrod is referred 
to the dodAo0s Kup., ékelvov to God, and 
e(wypnueva: to the spiritual capture and 
reclaiming of sinners, Luke vy. 10, comp. 
2 Cor. x. 5; (c) that of -Beza, Grotius, 
Hammond, and appy. Clarom. (‘eo..... 
ipsius’) according to which dvay...mayi- 
dos is to be connected with eis 7b éx SEA. ; 
avrov referring to the devil, éxeivov to 
God, and é(wyp. im airod being an ex- 
planatory clause to avav. é« mary. (almost, 
‘though held captive,’ etc.), marking more 
distinctly the state preceding the avdvn- 
quis. Of these (a) labors under the al- 
most insurmountable objection of refer- 
ring the two pronouns to the same sub- 
ject especially when a few verses below, 
ch. iii. 9, they are used correctly. De 
W. and his followers imperfectly quote 
Plato, Cratyl. p. 430 ©, as an instance of 
a similar use of the pronouns, but if the 


passage be properly cited, e. g. mpoceA- 
Sdvta avdpt Tw...Kdd Seita ait@, dy wey 
Tux éxelvov eikdva, dv be TUX yuvauKds, 
it will be seen that the antithesis of the 
last clause (omitted by De W.), suggests 
some reasons for the irregular introduc- 
tion of the more emphatic pronoun , the 
other instances referred to in Kiihner, 
Gr. § 629 (add Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 5, 
p 277), in which éxety. precedes and av- 
Tbs follows, do not apply. The sense, 
moreover, conveyed by this interpreta- 
tion is singularly flat and insipid. The 
objections to (b) are equally strong, for 
Ist, Cwypndévres (as indeed it is used by 
Theoph.), which marks the act (compare 
dn avavny.), would certainly have been 
used rather than the perfect part. which 
marks the state: and 2ndly, avrod is sep- 
arated from its subject by two interposed 
substantives, with either of which (gram- 
matically considered) the connection 
would have seemed more natural and 
perspicuous. The only serious objection 
to (c) is the isolation of e(wyp. im abrod ; 
this, however, may be diluted by obsery- 
ing that the simile involved in mays did 
seem to require a semi-parenthetical illus- 
tration. As, then, (c) yields a very good 
sense, as avay....eis is similar and. sym- 
metrical to peravoway eis émiyy., as the 
force of the perfect is unimpaired and 
the ‘proprietas utriusque pronominis’” 
(Beza) is thus fully preserved, we adopt, 
with but little hesitation, the last inter- 
pretation: see Hammond in Joc., and 
Scholef. Hints, p. 123 (ed. 3). We now 
notice a few individual expressions. 

avayvngdety, an drat Aeydu. in the N. 
T. (compare however, éxvjpew, 1 Cor. 
xy. 34), implies ‘a recovering from 
drunkenness to a state of former sobrie- 
ty,’ ‘crapulam excutere’ (Porphyr. de 
Abst. 1v. 20, ék Tis méSns avavh a), and 
thence metaphorically ‘ad se redire,’ e.g. 


@aap. IIT. 1, 2. Ze PMO EH ¥. 


151 


In the last days there shall 
be every form of vice. A- 
void all examples of such : 
they ever strive to seduce 
others and thwart the truth. 


III. Tobdro 6€ yivwoxe, btu ev éoydtals jpé- 


> , 
pals evoTHTOVTaL Kaltpol YareTOL. 2 écovTas 


1. yivwoxe] Lachm. reads yivwoxere with AFG; 3 mss.; Boern., 4th.-Pol.; 
Aug. (Tisch. ed. 1, Huther). Being a more difficult reading, it has some claim on 
our attention ; as however the reading of the text is so strongly supported —viz. by 
CDEKL; nearly all mss.; Syr, Vulg., Clarom , Sangerm., Aug., Copt., A®th.- 
Platt, Goth., al. ; several Greek and Latin Ff. (Ree., Grriesb., De W., Alf., Wordsw.) 
—and as it is possible that the following 87: may have given rise to the reading 
[yivwore dre being changed by an ignorant or careless writer into yuéaxere], it 


would seem that Tisch. (ed. 2,7) has rightly reversed his former opinion. 


ex TOY Sphywy, Joseph. Antiq. vi. 11. 10; 
see further examples in Wetst., Kypke, 
and Elsner in loc. There is apparently 
slight confusion of metaphor, but it may 
be observed that dvav. éx maryidos is really 
a ‘constructio preegnans,’ scil. ‘come to 
soberness and escape from,’ see Winer, 
Gr. § 66. 2, p. 547. Cwypety 
is properly ‘to capture alive’ ((wypet: 
(@vras AawBdve, Suid.), e.g. Polyb. /Zist. 
111. 84. 10, deduevor Cwypeiy, in contrast 
with dvapdeipe, and with dmorreivey, 
Thucyd. Hist. 11. 92, al.; thence ‘to 
capture,’ in an ethical sense, Luke y. 10, 
— but even there not without some allu- 
sive reference to the primary meaning ; 
sce Meyer inloc. In the LXX. itis used 
several times in the sense of ‘in vita ser- 
vare’ (Heb. m5), Josh. vi. 25, Numb. 
SER. 15, al.; comp. omy Jl. x 576, 
and see Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 
1302. Tod diaBdAovl 
See 1 Tim. iii. 7; and on the use of the 
term d:a8., see notes on Eph. iv. 27. 


CuapTeR III. 1. rotro Se] The 
dé is not wetaBatirdy, but continues the 
subject implied in ch. ii. 26, in an anti- 
thetical relation : ver. 26 mainly referred 
to the present and to recovery from Sa- 
tan’s snare ; ver. 1 sq. refers to the future 
and to a further progress in iniquity. 
év é€oxatais jucpacs| ‘in the last 
days,’ the last period of the Christian 
era, the times preceding the end, not 


merely ‘at the conclusion of the Jewish 
state’ (Waterland, Serm. 111. Vol. v. p. 
546), but ata period more definitely fu- 
ture (Uvorepoy éoduevoy, Chrys.), as the 
tense évoThoovta seems plainly to sug- 
gest; compare 1 Pet. i: 5; 2 Pet. i..8; 
Jude 18, and see notes on 1 Tim. iy. 1. 
It would seem, however, clear from ver. 
5, that the evil was beginning to work 
even in the days of Timothy; see Bull, 
Serm. xv. p. 276 (Oxford, 1844). On 
the omission of the article, compare Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 19, p. 113, where a list is given 
of similar words found frequently anar- 
throus. évathnoovratl 
‘will ensue,’ ‘ will set in ;’ not ‘immine- 


> 
bunt,’ but ‘aderunt,’ Bengel, och 


[venient] Syr., 7. e. will become present 
(e€veat@res) ; see notes on Gal. i. 4. De 
Wette objects to Vulg. ‘ instabunt’ [ad- 
venient, Clarom.], but ‘instare’’ appears 
frequently used in Latin to denote pres- 
ent time, comp. Cic. Tusc. rv. 6, and es- 
pecially Auct. ad Herenn. 11.5, ‘ dividitur 
[tempus] in tempora tria, preeteritum, 
instans, consequens.’ It is possible that 
the choice of the word may have been 
suggested by the apostle’s prophetic 
knowledge, that the evil which was more 
definitely to work in times farther future 
was now beginning to develop itself even 
in the early days of the Gospel; éoriv 
eipeivy ev iuiv & mponydpevoey 6 Seios 
améctodos, Theodoret: comp. 2 Thess. 


152 


2 TM OVER Y.. 


Cuap. III. 2, 3. 


yap of avSpwro. piravto., pirdpyvpor, ddrafoves, drepipavor, 
Brdodypuot, yovedow arreSeis, aXdpioToL, dvdcvol, 3% daTopyot, 


ele kKatpol xaremot] 
‘ difficult, grievous, times ;’ not merely in 
respect of the outward dangers they 
might involve (‘ periculosa,’ Vulg ), but 
the evils that marked them; ov x) tas 
juepas SiaBdrAdAwy A€yet OSE Tovs Kaipous, 
GAAG Tovs avSpdmovs Tos TéTe byTus, 
Chrysost.; compare Gal. i. 4, aid&y movn- 
pos, Eph. v. 16, 7uépa: movnpal. The 
xarerdrns of the times would be felt in 
the embarrassment in which a Christian 
might be placed how to act (‘ ubi vix 
reperias, quid agas,’ Beng.), and how to 
confront the various spiritual and tempo- 
ral dangers of the days in which he was 
living; comp. 2 Mace. iv. 16, wepleoxev 
avrovs XaAewH TeploTacts. 

2 of &vSpwro.| ‘men, generally :’ 
the article must not be overlooked ; it 
does not point merely to those of whom 
the apostle is speaking (Mack), but clear- 
ly implies that the majority of men shou!d 
at that time be such as he is about to de- 
scribe. piravtoz] ‘lovers 
of self; an &r Aeydu. in the N. T., de- 
fined by Theod. Mops. as of wavra mpds 
Thy EavT@v wpérAciay mowodvyres. It may 
be observed that @:Aavtia properly occu- 
pies this mpocdpia in the enumeration, be- 
ing the repressor of ayarn (thy ay. cuo- 
TéAAe Kal cis Bpaxd cuvdye, Chrys.), the 
true root of all evil, and the. essence of 
all sin; see especially Miiller, Doctr. of 
Sin, x 1. 3, Vol. 1. p. 136 sq. (Clark), 
and for an able delineation of its nature 
and specific forms, Barrow, Serm. Lx.— 
LX111. Vol. 111. p. 333 sq. and Water- 
land, Serm. 111. Vol. v p 446 sq. On 
piAdpyupo, which here very appropriately 
follows pidavro: (pirapyugia Svydtnp Ts 
iAavtias, Coray), comp. notes on 1 Tim. 
vi. 10 &AaCdves, bTwEph- 
parvo. ‘boastful, haughty,’ Rom. i. 30, 
whese tBpiota is also added. The dis- 
tinction between these terms (‘ &AaCovela 


© 


in verbis magis est, ostentatio, irepnpavta, 
superbia, cum aliorum contemtu et con- 
tumelia conjuncta,’ Tittm.) is investigat- 
ed by Trench, Synon. § 29, and Tittm. 
Synon. 1. p. 73. The derivation of the 
latter word is to a certain extent presery- 
se MO 

ed in the Syr, LSs5 [alti], the Latin 
‘superbi,’ and the English ‘haughty.’ 
In the case of the former word, the trans- 
lation of the Vulgate ‘lati’ [fastidiosi, 
Clarom.], is judiciously changed by Be- 
za into ‘ gloriosi.’ See notes to Transl. 
BrAdopnporl ‘blasphemers, or ‘evil 
speakers,’ karnyoplas xalpovres, Theod.- 
Mops. ; most probably the former, both 
‘vi ordinis ’ (Calov.), and because 8:déBo- 
Aot follows in ver. 3; compare notes on 
1 Tim. i. 18. The sepnpavia, a vice of 
the mind (see Trench, J. c.), develops 
itself still more fearfully in #8pis against 
God ; 6 yap nara avSpérwv emaipduevos, 
evkdAws Kal Kata Tod @cod, Chrysostom. 
The transition to the following clause 
is thus also very natural and appropri- 
ate; they alike reviled their heavenly 
father, and disobeyed their earthly pa- 
rents. &xdptaro.| (Luke 
vi. 35) naturally follow; ingratitude 
must necessarily be found where there is 
ameidera to parents ; 6 0€ yovets mh Timaev 
kal mpbs mdvTas ota axdpioros, Theoph. 
On aydoos, see notes on 1 Tim. i. 9. 

3. &otropyo.l ‘without natural affec- 
tion; dls Aeydu., here and Rom. i. 31; 
mep) ovdéva axéow exovtes, Theodosius- 
Mops., un ayarayrés twa, Hesych. but 
most exactly, Gicum., &pidor mpds rods 
oiketous,— destitute of love towards those 
for whom nature herself claims it. 3rép- 
yo, a word of uncertain derivation [pos- 
sibly connected with orep-, and Sanser, 
sprih, ‘desiderare,’ Pott, Etym. Forsch. 
Vol. 1. p. 284], denotes primarily and 
properly the love between parents and 


Cuap. III. 4,5. 


2 Or HY 


153 


dorovéot, SidBorot, axpatets, avnwepor, apitayaSot, 4 mpoddtar, 
mporreteis, TeTUpPMpévor, PidrrjSovor wadAXov 7) PurdSeot, 5 ~yovres 


children (compare Plato, Legg. v1. p. 754 
B, Xenoph. Gicon. vii. 54), and thence 
between those connected by similar or 
parallel relations. Like dyamrdw (the 
usual word in the N. T.) it is rarely used 
in good authors of mere sensual love. 
It does not occur in the N. T. or LXX. ; 
only Ecclus. xxvii. 17, oréptov ¢ldov 
(Ecclus. viii. 20, is more than doubtful). 
&omovdor] ‘implacable;’ an Gm. de- 
yu.,— Rom. i. 31 ( Rec.) being of doubt- 
ful authority. The difference between 
%oroydo and aovvSera (Rom. i. 31), as 
stated by Tittm., Synon. 1. p. 75, ‘ actvs. 
qui non ineunt pacta, ao. qui redire in 
gratiam nolunt,’ is lexically doubtful. 
The former seems to denote one who ‘does 
not abide by the compacts into which 
he has entered, wh éupévwy tals cvvdh- 
kais, Hesych. (comp. Jerem. iii. 8, 10; 
Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 383, connected 
with aordSuntos) ; &omovdos, one who 
will not enter upon them at all. This 
and the foregoing epithet are omitted in 
Syr. On diaBordos compare notes on 1 
Tim. iii. 11. &kparecs| 
‘incontinent, irrovs Tay TaXav, Theod.- 
Mops., ‘intemperantes,’ Beza; Gm. Ac- 
you.: the opposite éyxparhs occurs Tit. 
i.8. Thesubst. axpacta (Lobeck, Phryn. 
p- 524) occurs 1 Cor, vii. 7. 

avhmeportl ‘savage,’ ‘brutal,’ literally 
‘untamed,’ am. Aeydu.; Shpia avtl ay- 
Spémwv, Theophylact, compare Syriac 

mo ie 
Lops pc [feri]: ‘ungentle’ (Peile), 
seems far too mild a translation, dudrys 
and érfvea (Chrysost., comp. Gicum.) 
are rather the characteristics of the av7/- 
Mepos. apirdayasor| 
‘haters of good, éxSpol mavytds ayasod, 
(&cum., Theoph.; another a. Acydu. : 
the opposite giAdyaSo. occurs Tit. i. 8, 
where see notes ; compare Wisd. vii. 22. 
It does not seem necessary, with Beza 
20 


and Auth. Ver., to limit the ref. to persons, 
either here or Tit. /.c.; comp. Suic., Thes. 
Vol. 11. p. 1426. So appy. Goth. ‘ unsél- 
jai’ [cogn. with ‘selig’], Vulg., Clarom., 
‘sine benignitate,’ and, as far as we can 
infer from the absence of any studied ref. 
to persons, Syr, Arm., Copt., /Ethiop. 
These are cases in which the best an- 
cient Vy. may be profitably consulted. 

4. rp05é7at\ ‘betrayers,’ most prob- 
ably of their (Christian) brethren and 
friends ; mpodérar giAlas nad éraipelas, 
Cicum.: compare Luke vi. 16, Acts vii. 
bP mpotweTtecs| ‘ head- 
strong,’ headlong in action,— not merely 
in words (Suid. mpomwerhs, 6 mpdyAwooos), 
or in thoughts (comp. Hesych., apd rod 
Aoyiopwov) ; see Acts xix. 36, undév mpo- 
meTes mpatrev, and compare Herodian, 
Hist. 11. 8.4, Td ToApayv...ovK otons edAd- 
The 
partial synonym mpoadfs, Ecclus. xxx. 
8, is condemned in its adverbial use by 
Phryn. p. 245 (ed. Lob.), and Thom. M. 
p. 744 (ed. Bern.). On tetupwpévor, see 
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 6. 
ptrAhdovor x.7.A.| ‘lovers of pleasure 
rather than lovers of God ;’ both: words 
dr. Aeyou. in the N. T. Wetstein cites 
very appositely Philo, de Agricult. § 19, 
Vol. 1. p. 3183 (ed. Mang.), p:A7jSovov rab 
piroradh MarAov 7 piddpetov kal pirdSeov 
epydonra. 

5. poppwaty 


‘you Tpopdcews mpomeres Kal Spacv. 


evoeBetas| ‘an 


o 
(outward) form of godliness,’ [Souno| 


[oxiiua] Syr. ‘speciem pietatis,’ Vulg., 
Clarom.; pdépdwow, &buxov Kal vexpdy, 
kal oxijua pdvoy Kal tTumov Kal SmoKpiow 
dndovv. Chrys. Mdpdwors occurs again 
in Rom. ii. 20, but, as Chrys rightly ob- 
serves, in a different application ; here, 
as the context clearly shows, it implies 
the mere outward form as opposed to the ~ 
inward and pervading influence (Sdvauts).. 


164 


Loppawcw evoeBelas Thy 5é Svat adths npynpévor 


2 EVE O MEY. 


Cuap. IIL.6.°: 
/ 


Kal TOUTOUS 


s L ) t / > fiers Z > \ 3 Jy 
ATOT PETTOV. 6 €x TOUTMY yop €lLOLV OL EVOUVOVTES €lS TAS OLKLAS 


The more correct word would be pdppw- 
pa, (isch. Agam. 873, Lum. 412), pép- 
gwos being properly active, e.g. oxnua- 
Tiguos Kal udppwots tay dévdpwr, 'Theo- 
phrast, Cuus. Plant. 111. 7. 4: there is, 
however, a tendency in the N. T., as in 
later writers, to replace the verbal nouns 
in -ua by the corresponding nouns in 
-cis; compare vmorimwois, chap. i. 13. 
For a plausible distinction between jop- 
o} and cxjua, the former as what is ‘ in- 
trinsic’ and ‘ essential,’ the latter as what 
is ‘outward’ and ‘ accidental,'— hence 
péppwors here (an aiming at, affecting, 
Hoppy) not popphy,—see Lightfoot in 
Journ. Class. Philol. No.7, p. 115. On 
the meaning of edoéBeia, see notes on 1 
Wim 1.2. This enumeration of 
vices may be compared with Rom. 1. 29 
sq., though there absolute heathenism is 
described, where here the reference is 
rather to a kind of heathen Christianity ; 
both lists, however, have, as indeed might 
well be imagined, several terms in com- 
mon. The various attempts to portion 
out these vices into groups (compare 
Peile) seem all unsuccessful; a certain 
connection may be observed, in some 
parts, e.g. ddaCoves kK. T. A., BAdTHHuOL 
k.7.A., but it seems so evidently in other 
parts to give way to similarity in sound 
or similarity of composition (e. g. mpod., 
mpor.), that no practical inferences can 
safely be drawn. Thy be 
ddivauty K.7.A.] ‘but having denied 
the power thereof.’ ‘To deny the power 
of godliness, is for a man by indecent 
and vicious actions to contradict his out- 
ward show and profession of godliness,’ 
Bull, Serm. xv. p. 279 (Oxford, 1844) : 
compare Tit. i. 16. The term Stvaus 
appears to mark the ‘ practical influence ’ 
which ought to pervade and animate the 
evoéBeia; compare 1 Cor. iv. 20. On 
the character depicted in this and the 


preceding clauses see a striking Sermon _ 
by Bp. Hall, Serm. xxvut. Vol. v. p. 
366 (Oxf. 1837). kal Tov- 
tous amo7p.| ‘from THESE turn away.’ 
The «at seems here to retain its proper 
force by specifying those particularly 
who were to be avoided; there were 
some of whom hopes might be entertain- 
ed (ch. ii. 25), these, however, belonged 
to a far more depraved class, on whom 
instruction would be thrown away, and 
who were the melancholy types of the 
more developed mystery of iniquity of 
the future ; ‘at ponimus si duas perso- 
nas taciti contendimus,’ Klotz, Devar. 
Vol, 11. p. 636,—by whom this and 
similar usages of «a! are well illustrated. 
Heydenr. seems to have missed this pre- 
lusive and prophetic reference, when he 
applies all the evil characteristics above- 
mentioned, specially and particularly to 
the erroneous teachers of the present: 
these latter, as the following verses show, - 
had many evil elements in common with 
them, but the two classes were not iden- 
tical. "Amorpen, (an Gz. Acydu.) is nearly 
synonymous with éextpér., 1 Tim. vi. 20, 
and joined similarly with an accusative. 
6. éx TrovTwy yap] The yap (not to 
be omitted in translation, as Conyb., al.) 
serves clearly and distinctly to connect 
the future and the present. The seeds 
of all these evils were germinating even 
at the present time; and Timothy, by 
being supplied with criteria derived from 
the developed future (some, indeed, of 
which, @xovtes usppwow k. T. A., applied 
obviously enough to the teachers of his 
own days), was to be warned in regard 
of the developing present: comp. Chrys. 
in loc, There is thus no reason whatever 
with Grot. to consider eioly a ‘ prees. pro 
futuro.’ évdtvortes| 
‘ creeping into,’ like serpents (Moller), or 
wolves intoa fold (Coray); «ides 7d _ 


Cia: TIT. 7. 


2TIMOTHY. 


155 


kal aixuaroriforres yuvaikdpia cecwpevpéva dpuaptiais, ayoueva 


émiyupiats Toukinats, 7 


avaloxuytov mas edhAwoe Sid Tod euTeiv, 
évd.; Té &rimov, Thy amdtnv, Thy KoAd- 
keay ; Chrysost.: compare Jude 4, ma- 
petredvoav, where the covertness and fur- 
tive character of the intrusive teachers is 
yet more fully marked. The verb is (in 
this sense) an @m. Aeydu. in the N. T., 
but used sufficiently often in classical 
Greek in similar meanings, both with 
eis, e.g. Aristoph. Vesp. 1020, évd. eis 
yaorépas, and with a simple dative, Xen- 
oph. Cyr. 11. 1. 13, évd. tats Wuxais tev 
axovdytwy. aixmarwrTt- 
Cortes] ‘leading captive ;’ Luke xxi. 24, 
Rom. vii. 23, 2 Cor. x.5. This verb is 
usually specified as one of those words 
in the N. T. which have been thought to 
be of Alexandrian or Macedonian origin ; 
compare Fischer, Prolus. xx1. 2, p. 693: 
itis condemned by the Atticists (Thom. 
M. p. 23, ed. Bern., Lobeck, Piiryn. p. 
442), the Attic expression being aixud- 
Awtoy Tod. Examples of the use of the 
word in Joseph., Arrian, etc, are given 
in the notes on Thom. Mag. l. c. 

yuvatedpea| ‘silly women, ‘ muliercu- 
las’ Vulg., ‘kvineina’ [literally ‘ mulie- 
bria,’ an abstract neut.], Goth. ; the di- 
minutive expressing contempt, yuvandy 
d¢ Td dmaTacSat, waAAOY BE OVdE yuvaKar, 
GAAG yuvatcapiwy, Chrysost.: compare 
avdpapia, Aristoph. Acharn. 517, av3pw- 
mapia, ib. Plut. 416. The mention of 
women in connection with the false teach- 
ers is, as might be imagined, not passed 
over by those who attack the genuine- 
ness of this Epistle ; compare Baur, Pas- 
toralbr. p. 36. That the Gnostics of the 
second and third centuries made use of 
women in the dissemination of their her- 
esies is a mere matter of history ; comp. 
Epiphan. Her. xxvi. 11, awaréytes rd 
avrTois metSduevoy yuvatketoy yévos, add 
Tren. Her, 1. 18.3, al. Are we, howev- 
er, hastily to conclude that a course of 


TavToTe pavSdvovta Kal pndérote els 


actions, which was in effect as old as the 
fall of man (1 Tim. ii. 14), belonged 
only to the Gnostic era, and was not also 
successfully practised in the apostolic 
age? MHeinsius and Elsner notice the 
somewhat similar course attributed to 
the Pharisees, Joseph. Antig. xv11. 2. 4. 
Justiniani adduces a vigorous passage of 
Jerome, (/pist. ad Ctesiph. 133. 4) on 
the female associates of heresiarchs, which 
is, however, too long for citation. 

cecwpeuvpéva| ‘aden, up-heaped with: 
the verb owpedew (connected probably 
with gopds) occurs again, in a quotation, 
Rom. xii. 20, and forcibly depicts 7d 
TAHIOS TOV GpmapTiav, Kat To &rakToy Kab 
ovykexuuevoy, Chrysost. On the instru- 
mental dative in connection with &yeo- 
Sa, see notes on Gal. v. 18, and on the 


form moitaos [TIIK-, connected with m- 


kpds|, see Donalds: Cratyl. § 266, Pott, 
Etymol. Forsch. Vol 11. p. 600. 

7. wadvtToTe mavad.| ‘ever learning,’ 
— not necessarily ‘in conventibus Chris- 
tianorum’ (Grot.), but from any who 
will undertake to teach them. It was no 
love of truth that impelled them to learn, 
but only a morbid love of novelty ; ‘ pre 
curiositate et instabilitate animi semper 
nova querunt, eaque suis desideriis ac- 
commoda,’ Estius. 
kat wndeém. x. 7. A.] ‘and yet never able 
to come to the (true) knowledge of the truth ; 
compare notes on verse 11, where the 
faint antithetic force of al is more strong- 
ly marked. The duvydueva is not without 
some significance; in their better mo- 
ments they might endeavor to attain to 
some knowledge of the truth, but they 
never succeed ; érwpédn 7 Kapdia, Chrys. 
The conditional negative wndém. is used 
with the participle, as the circumstance 
of their inability to attain the truth is 
stated not as an absolute fact, but as a 
subsequent characteristic of their class, 


156 


2-TIMOTHY:. 


Cuap. III. 8) 


erriyvaow ddnSelas éMSeiv Suvapeva. § ov TpoTrov dé Tavyns Kab. 
"LapBpis avréctncav Moicei, obtws Kai obtov avSiotavtas TH 


and of the results which it led to; though: 
they were constantly learning, and a 
knowledge of the truth might have been 
ultimately expected, yet they never did 
attain to it: see Winer, Gr.§ 59. 5, p. 
428, and the copious list of examples in 
Gayler, Partic. Neg. ch. 1x. p. 284 sq. 
In estimating, however, the force of wy 
with participles in the N. T., it must not 
be forgotten that this usage is the prevail- 
ing one of the sacred Writers ; see Green, 
Gr. p. 122. The subject generally is 
largely illustrated by Gayler, chap. 1x., 
but itis much to be regretted that a 
work so affluent in examples should of- 
ten be so deficient in perspicuity. On 
ériyvwow k.T.A., see reff. in note on 1 
Tim. ii. 4. 

8. *lavvqs kal “lauBpijs| ‘Jannes 
and Jambres ;’ Ta TovtTwy byduata ovK eK 
Tis Seias ypapis ueuddnnev 6 Setos amdo- 
ToOAOS, GAN’ ex THS aypapouv Tay “lovdalwy 
didacxaAtus, Theod. in loc. Jannes and 
Jambres [Iwdvyns C1, and MauBpis FG ; 
Vulg., al.], according to ancient Hebrew 
tradition, were chief among the magi- 
cians who opposed Moses (Exodus vii. 
11, 22), Aiydariot iepoypayparets &vdpes 
ovdevds HrTous yaryedou KpidevTes elvan, 
Numenius in Orig. Cels. rv. 51; see Targ. 
Jon. on Hxod.i.15, and vil. 11, and comp. 
Euseb. Prep. 1x. 8. They are further 
said to have been the sons of Balaam, 

_and to have perished either in the Red 
Sea, or at the slaughter after the worship 
of the golden calf; see the numerous 
passages cited by Wetstein in /oc. It is 
thus probable that the apostle derived 
these names from a current and (being 
quoted by him) true tradition of the Jew- 
ish Church. The supposition of Origen 
(Comment. in Matth. § 117, Vol. 111. p. 
916, ed. Bened.) that the names were 
derived from an apocryphal work called 
‘Jamnis et Mambris Liber,’ cannot be 


substantiated. Objections urged against 
the introduction of these names, when. 
gravely considered, will be found of no. 
weight whatever ; why was the inspired 
apostle not to remind Timothy of the 
ancient traditions of his country, and to 
cite two names which there is every rea- 
son to suppose were too closely connected 
with the early history of the nation to be 
easily forgotten ? For further references 
see Spencer’s note on Orig. Celsus l. c., 
and for literary notices, ete., Winer, 
RWB. Art. ‘Jambres,’ Vol. 1. p. 535. 
There is a special treatise on the subject 
by J. G. Michaelis, 4to, Hal. 1747. 
ottTws kat ob7To1| ‘thus do these men 
also withstand the truth.’ The points of 
comparison between the false and de- 
praved teachers of the present, and the 
sorcerers of the past, consist in (a) an 
opposition to the truth, aydicrayta tH 
dAnveta (comp. Acts xiii. 8, avdtorato 
avtois ‘EAvuas), and (0) the profitless 
character of that opposition, and notori- 
ous betrayal of their folly; avo atv 
ExdnAos k. T. A. wS Kal 7 ekelvwy éyéveTo. 
At the same time, without insisting on a 
further ‘ tertium comparationis,’ it is cer- 
tainly consistent both with the present 
context (compare yénres ver. 13) and 
with other passages of Scripture (e. g. 
Acts viii. 9 sq., xiii. 6 sq., xix. 13, 19) 
to assume that, like Jannes and Jambres, 
these false teachers were permitted to 
avail themselves of occult powers incom- 
municable and inaccessible to others; see 
Wiesinger in loc., and comp. Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 216, note. 
katepadapmevor toy vodv] ‘cor- 
rupted in their minds ;’ compare 1 Tim. 
vi. 5, SuepSapu. Tov vovy, and see notes 
and references. The clause marks the 
utter moral depravation of these unhappy 
men ; their vods (the human spirit view- 
ed both in its intellectual and moral as- | 


Ouab. IIL: 9, 10. 


] a i , a 
adyNeia, dvSpwrot KatepYappévor Tov vodv, 


2 TIMOTHY. 157 


2Q7 By bee. ONAN 
adoKipot Tepl. Thy 


t > 3 > 4 \ lal a 
miotw. % aXX ov Tpoxoryovow eri mreiov' 1 yap dvowa a’tav 
Yj n 
ExOnros EoTar TAC, WS Kal 1) exelvwV éyéveETo. 


Thou knowest alike my 10 ‘ pS 4 s a 
faith and sufferings. Evil Sv dé TapnkodovsSnoas ov TH dvdacKa- 


men shall increase, but do thou hold fast to the Holy Scriptures, which will make thee wise and perfect. 


, 10. mapnkoratsnoas| So Tisch. ed.1, with ACFG (FG jrorotSnoas); 17;.... 
(Lach., Huther, Wiesing., Leo, Alf.). In his 2nd and 7th editions. Tisch. adopts 
mapnkodovenkas with DEKL; appy. nearly all mss. ; Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al. 
(Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Wordsw.). The change does not seem for the better. The 
external evidence is perhaps slightly in favor of the perfect, but internal evidence 
seems certainly in favor of the aorist ; for in the first place, as wapniod. is a notice- 
able word, it is not very unlikely that a remembrance of the perf. in 1 Tim. iv. 6 
might have suggested an alteration in the present verse ; and again, the hortatory 
tone of the chapter (comp. v. 5, 14) seems most in harmony with the aor. The per- 
fect would imply that the conduct of Timothy noticed in v. 10 sq. was continuing the 
same (‘argumento utitur ad incitandum Timotheum,’ Caly.); the aorist, on the 
contrary, by drawing attention to the past, and being silent as to the present (see 
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16), suggests the latent exhortation to be careful to act now as 


then. 


pects, Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. rv. 15,p. Vol. 1. p. 81. 


244) is corrupted, the medium of com- 
munication with the Holy Spirit of God 
polluted : the light that is within is be- 


coming, if not actually become, dark- 


ness; compare Eph. iv. 17 sq., and notes 
in loc. The difference between the com- 
pounds diap3. (1 Tim. /. c.) and caraps. 
is very slight; both are intensive, the 
former pointing perhaps more to the per- 
vasive nature, the latter to the prostrating 
character of the p3op¢d. So somewhat 
similarly Zonaras, katapSopa, ) mavTe- 
Ads ardrcia: SiapSopa 5é, Stay BAAN od- 
ola dv érépas apavifera, Sowep To cOua 
57d oxwdAnnov, Lex. p. 1154. 

&ddnkimot Kx. 7. A.| ‘reprobate concern- 
ing the faith ;’ unapproved of (‘ unpro- 
behaltig,’ De W.), and consequently ‘ re- 
jectanei’ in the matier of the faith. The 
active translation (‘ nullam probandi fac- 
ultatem habentes,’ Beng.) is plainly op- 
posed to St. Paul’s and the prevailing 
use of the word; comp. Rom. i. 28, 1 
Cor. ix..27, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Tit. i. 16, and 
see notes on ch. ii. 15, and Fritz. Rom. 


On this use of zepi, see 
notes on 1 Tim. i. 19. 

9. GAN ob rpoKdy,.| ‘ Notwithstand- 
ing they shall not make further advance ;’ 
&@AAa& with its full adversative force (ubi 
gravior quzedam oppositio inter duo 
enunutiata intercedit, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 3), here contrasting the opposition 
and its ultimate results, and thus intro- 
ducing a ground for consolation : ‘ fidu- 
cia victoriz Timoth. animat ad certa- 
men,’ Caly. There is, however, no con- 
tradictory statement to ch. ii. 16, and iii. 
13 (De W.); all the apostle says in fact 
is, that there shall be no real and u/timate 
advance; Kav mpétepoy avdyon Ta Tijs 
mAdvns, eis TEAOS ov Biauwevec, Chrysost. 
The gloss of Bengel,—‘non proficient 
amplius; non ita ut alios seducant ; 
quanquam ipsi et eorum similes profi- 
cient in pejus, ver. 13,-—is obviously in- 
sufficient to meet the difficulty ; comp. 
ch, ii. ver. 17, vouny er, and ch. iii. 13, 
mAavavtes. The advance is not denied, 
but the successful advance, i.e. without 
detection and exposure, is denied; ov 


158 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. III. 10. 


Aa, TH aywyH, TH Tpodéce, TH TicTEL, TH waKpoSupla, TH wyarn, 


Anoovoet expt TOAAOD oxnmaTiCduevor THY 
evoeBeray, GAN STL TaXLCTA YyUuEYWAhoor- 
tai, Theodoret, see Est. in loc. 
&vota] ‘senselessness,’ ‘wicked folly,’ 
‘amentia,’ Beza; compare Luke vi. 11, 
émAnosnoay avotas, where the meaning 
is nearly the same, and is not ‘ rage of an 
insensate kind,’ De Wette, al. (see Thu- 
eyd. 111. 38, where &vora is opposed to 
ed Bovdeverdat), but, as in the present 
case, ‘senselessness’ in a moral as well 
as intellectual point of view, ‘ wicked, as 
well as insensate, folly ;’ compare Beck, 
Bibl. Seelenl. 11. 18, p. 51, and see 2 
Macc. xiv. 5, especially xv. 33, and Jo- 
seph. Antig. virt. 13. 1, where avo is 
joined with ovnpla, and ascribed to 
Ahab. The remark of Coray is very 
near the truth, tis avris yeveas Kal Tod 
avrTov atwaros civat n Kala Kal 7) wwpia. 
@xdnAos| ‘openly manifest, adiordKTws 
gavepds, Coray; compare Exodus viii. 
18, ix. 11. The word is an Gz. Acyédu. 
in the N. T., but is found in earlier (Ho- 
mer, J/. v. 2), and is of common occur- 
rence in later writers, 3 Mace. iii. 19, vi. 
5, Polyb. Hist. 111. 12. 4, 111. 48. 5, al. 
10. mapnkoAovsnoas| 


follower of,’ Syriac sA5 de Z| [ve- 


nisti post], 7. e. ‘ followedst as a disciple,’ 
and thence, though rather too distant 
from the primary meaning, ‘hast fully 
known,’ Auth. Ver. ; see notes on 1 Tim. 
iv. 6, where the meaning of this word is 
investigated. On the force of the aor., 
see critical note. In the following words, 
pov 77 Sidacr., the pronoun, though not 
necessarily always so (see Winer, (r. § 
22.7, p. 140), seems here in emphatic 
opposition to the subjects of the preced- 
ing verse. ™m aywryn| ‘my 
manner of life, conduct” ty 81a Tav Epywr 
moditela, Theodoret,— nearly equivalent 
to Tas dd0vs mov Tos év Xp., 1 Cor. iv. 17. 
The word is an Gr. Aeyou. in N. Test.; 


“wert a 


see, however, Esther ii. 20, ob perhAAate 
Thy aywyhy airis (* vite sus rationem,” 
Schleusn.), and compare 2 Mace. iv. 16, 
vi. 8, xi. 24. The meaning is rightly 
given by Hesych., aywyh Tpémos, avac- 
tpooy; see also Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 
Vol. 1. p. 72. Leo refers aywyh to the 
‘ doctrine ratio,’ followed by the apostle, 
referring to Diod. Sic. Hist. 1. 52, 92, 
but both references are false. 

TH Tmpoxeaer| ‘my purpose,’ scil. (as 
the following word zioris seems to hint) 
of remaining true to the Gospel of Christ 
and the great spiritual objects of his life ; 
‘propositum propagandi Evangelii, et 
credentes semper meliores reddendi, ’ 
Grot. In all other passages in St. Paul's 
Epistles, rpéSecrs is used with reference 
to God; see Rom. viii. 28, ix. 11, Eph. 
i. 11, iii. 11, 2 Tim. i. 9. The peculiar 
and ecclesiastical meaning (‘ altare pro- 
positionis’) is noticed in Suicer, Thes. s. 
v. Vol. 11. p. 842. TH 
mtores is referred by some commenta- 
tors to ‘ faith,’ in its usual acceptation, 
Th ev tois Séyyaow, Theoph. 1, on ac- 
count of the near position of aydarn ; by 
others to ‘trust’ in God, tH wh amoyryva- 
ake mowovon, Cacumen., Theoph. 2, so 
also Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 240. Per- 
haps the gloss of Theodoret, émroiay exw 
mep) Tov Seomdrny Siddeow, is the most 
inclusive and satisfactory. 

TH pakpostupial ‘my long-suffering,’ 
forbearing patience, whether towards sin- 
ners generally (Theod.), or the avtidia- 
TiSéuevot (ch. ii, 25) specially : see notes 
on Eph. iv. 2, and on the distinction be- 
tween paxpoSuuta and mpadrns, notes on 
1 Tim. i. 16. The definition of Zonaras 
(Lex. p. 1330) is brief, but pithy and 
suggestive; pmakpoduula, mefis Advmns. 
The concluding word érouovy marks fur- 
ther the brave patience in enduring not 
only contradiction and opposition, but 
even injury and wrong, and leads on 


‘Cxar. III. 11, 12.) 


ae a i 
T) UTTOMOVN. 


2 TIMOTHY. 


159 


lal a n l4 Re? 3 af BJ 
tols Siumypmots, Tols TaSHwacw, oid pot eyéveTo ev 


"A la, év Inoviw, év Atvotpots, olovs &: ds vmHnveyKa’ l 
vrvoxela, ev Ixovie, év Tpols, 5 Su@ypods Umjveyxa’ Kab 


> 14 DIE € , 
€K TTAVT@Y ME EPPUTATO O Kupuos. 


naturally to rots Siwyu. K.7.A., ver. 11. 
On Szop., see notes on ch. ii. 10, and on 
Tit. ii. 2. 

ll. rots diwyyp.| ‘my persecutions ;’ 
‘injurias complectitur quas Judzi et eth- 
nici Christianis propter doctrine Christ. 
professionem imposuerunt, ut verbera, 
delationes, vincula, relegationem,’ Fritz. 
Rom. viii. 35, Vol. 11. p. 221. 
oid wotn.t.A.| ‘such (sufferings) as 
befel mein Antioch (Acts xiii. 50), in Ico- 
nium (Acts xiv. 2 sq.), in Lystra (Acts 
xiv. 14, 19);’ on the repetition of ma37- 
para in translation, see Scholef. Hints, 
p- 124. It has been doubted why these 
particular sufferings have been specified. 
Chrysostom refers it to the fact of Timo- 
thy’s acquaintance with those parts of 
Asia (‘ utpote ex Lystris oriundi,’ Est.) ; 
this is not at all improbable, especially if 
we suppose these sufferings had been 
early known to Timothy, and had led 
him to unite himself to the apostle ; it is, 
however, perhaps equally likely that it 
was their severity which suggested the 
particular mention, compare Acts xiv. 
19, voutoavres avtdy [MatAoy] redvavat. 
ofovs diwyp.| ‘such persecutions as I 
endured ;’ as these (particularly.at Lys- 
tra) were especially d:wyyol, not merely 
general radfjuara, but sharp and active 
inflictions, by stoning, etc., St. Paul re- 
peats the word, joining it emphatically 
with ojos still more to specify the pecu- 
liar cases which he is mentioning as ex- 
amples. It is certainly not necessary to 
regard the clause as an exclamation 
(Heydenr., Mack), nor is there even any 
occasion for supplying ‘thou hast seen’ 
what, etc. (Conyb., compare Alf.), as 
this seems to weaken the force of the 
sentence, and indeed to vitiate the con- 
struction. 
“and out of all ;’ d&ppdrepa. rapaxAnrews, 


kal én rdyvtwv| 


\ 
2 kat mavtes Se of SéAovtes 


brt kal ey@ mpoSuulay maperxouny yevval- 
This 
is no ‘ Hebraica constructio pro ex quibus 
omnibus,’ Grot.; kal, with its usual as- 
censive force, gives the opposition involy- 
ed in the clause which it introduces, a 
distinct prominence,—‘ my persecutions 
were great, and yet God delivered me out 
of all;’ compare Eurip. Herc. Fur. 508, 


av, Kal ovk eyKareAclpany, Chrys. 


éparé pw, omep fy mepiBAewTOos...Kat we 
apeiAcs’ 4) TUX, See Rost u. Palm, Lez. 
s. v. 11. 1. ¢c, Vol. 1. p. 1540, and further 
exx. in Hartung, Partik. ral, 5. 6, Vol. 
I. p. 148. 

12. kal mavres 8é] ‘and all too,’ 
or sufficiently approximately, ‘yea and 
all, Auth. Ver. ; see especially notes on 
1 Tim. iii. 10, where this construction is 
investigated. De Wette is here slightly 
incorrect on two points ; first, ‘et omnes 
autem,’ Beng., is a translation of xal—dé 
which need not be rejected, see Hand, 
Tursellin., Vol. 1. p. 5843 secondly, «at 
—de (even supposing 1 Tim. iii. 10 be 
not taken into account) occurs elsewhere 
in St. Paul’s Epistles ; viz., Rom. xi. 23. 
The verse involves a perfectly general 
declaration (Calv.), and seems intended 
indirectly to prepare Timothy for encoun- 
tering persecutions, and may be para- 
phrased, ‘but such persecutions are not 
confined to me or to a few; they will 
extend even to all, and consequently to 
thee among the number ;’ comp. Liicke 
on 1 John i. 3. of SéAovtTes| 
‘whose will is to,’ etc. ; ‘computa igitur 
an velis,’ Beng.: the verb SéA. is not 
pleonastic, but points to those whose will 
is enlisted in the matter, and who really 
have some desires to lead a godly life ; 
see Winer, Gram. § 65.7, p. 541. The 
Vulg. by its departure from what seems 
to have been the order of the older Lat. 
Versions (comp. Clarom.), apparently 


160 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cap. Hl. 13, 


evoeBas Sav ev XprotS “Inood SiwySjcovra..” Tlovypot -8é 


dvSpwro. Kal yontes mpokdypovow emi TO xElpov, TAaVaVTES Kab 


desires to mark the connection of this 
participle with etceBds, ‘ qui pie volunt 
vivere ;’ it seems, however, almost per- 
fectly certain that the adverb belongs to 
(av, compare Titus ii. 12. On the mean- 
ing of eiccBds, compare notes on 1 Tim. 
Thee évy Xp. “Ina.] ‘in 
Christ Jesus,’ in fellowship, in union with 
Him; ‘modum exponit sine quo non 
contigit pie vivere,’ Est.; ‘extra Chris- 
tum Jesum nulla pietas,’ Beng. : comp. 
notes on Gal. ii. 17, Eph. ii. 6, 7, and 
elsewhere. diwxdHoorvTtat| 
‘shall be persecuted.’ St. Paul is here 
only reiterating the words of his Master, 
ei ue edlwtay Kad tuas Siwtovow, John 
xv. 20; compare Matth. x. 22, 1 Thess. 
iii. 3, etc. This declaration clearly refers 
to the outward persecutions which the 
apostles and their followers were to un- 
dergo ; it may be extended, however, in 
a practical point of view to all Chris: 
tians; compare August. Hpist. 145, de 
Civit. xvi11.°51, and verse 1 of that no- 
ble chapter, Ecclus. ii. 

13. movnpol b& &vdSp.]| ‘ But evil 
men;’ immediate contrast with of Séa. 
evo. (iv; the subject of the verse, how- 
ever, reverts to ver. 10 sq., and, as verse 
14 seems to hint, to the contrast between 
Timothy and the false teachers. The 
latter are included in the general and an- 
arthrous movnpot &vSp.; evil men, and, 
consequently, they among the number. 
yénres| ‘deceivers,—Goth., ‘ liutai’ 
[deceivers,— cogn. with Angl.-Sax. ly- 
tig] ; sim. though slightly less exact, Syr., 


mO oe 
Jad sbo [seducentes].— The kal ap- 
pends to the general roynpol, apparently 
with somewhat of an explanatory force, 
amore specific and definite appellation, 
compare Fritz.on Mark i.5.p.11. Téns 
(derived from -yodw) has properly refer- 
ence to ineantations by howling ; elpnta 


amd tay yowy Tay wep) Tdpous ywopmever, 
Suidas, s. v. (comp. Soph. Ajaa, 582, 
Herod. Hist. v11. 191); thence to the 
practice of magic arts generally, yéns 
kal dapuareds, Plato, Symp. p. 203 p, 
and thence by a very natural transition 
to deception and imposture generally,— 
apparently the prevailing meaning ; Et- 
ymol. M. yéns, pevotns, amatredy, Pollux, 
Onom. Iv. 6, yéns, a&maredv, similarly 
Timeus, Lex. Plat. s. v.; compare De- 
mosthen. de Fals. Leg. p. 374, &mo7os, 
yéns, wovnpéds, Joseph. contr. Ap. 11. 16, 
ov yéns ovd amareoy. This general 
meaning then (opp. to Huther) seems 
fully substantiated. We cannot indeed 
definitely infer from this term that magic 
arts were actually used by these deceiy- 
ers, but there is certainly nothing in such 
a supposition inconsistent either with the 
context, the primary meaning of the word, 
or the deseription of similar opponents 
mentioned elsewhere in the N. T.; see 
notes on ver. 8. In the eccles. writers 
yéns and yonrela are frequently (perhaps 
commonly) used in this primary and 
more limited sense of the word, see Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 776. 
mpokdWovgty k.7.A.] ‘will make ad- 
vance toward the worse:’ ém pointing to 
the xefpoy as the degree to which the 
wickedness was, as it were, advancing 
and ascending ; compare Winer, Gr. § 
49,1, p. 363. The mpoxom) is here con- 
sidered rather as intensive, in ver. 9 rather 
as extensive. On the apparent contradic- 
tion in the two verses, see above, notes 
in loc. TwrAavaGyrTes kar 
mA.| ‘deceiving and being deceived ;’ cer- 
tainly not middle, ‘ letting themselves be 
deceived’ (Beng.), but passive. It is 
the true mpoxom} ém) 7d xeipov ; they be- 
gin by deceiving others, and end in being” 
deceived themselves. Deceit, as De 
W. remarks, is never without self-deceit. 


Cnav. IIL. 14, 15: 2 TIMOTHY 161 
Mech de meve ev ols Euades Kal emicT@ 7s, cidws 
15 


‘TAVO [EVOL 
. \ f Bs is ee > \ / x e \ / 
mapa Tivos eUayEs, Kal OTe amro Bpépovs Ta lepa ypaupata 
14. mapa tlvos] It seems best on the whole to retain rivos (Tisch. ed. 2) with 
C°DEKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg., Goth., Copt., Syr. (both) Chrys., Theod., al. 
(Mil, Griesb., Scholz, Wiesing.). The reading rivwv adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
ed. 7 is well supported — viz., by AC/FG ; 17.71 (Matthies, Huther, Alf.) ; as how- 
ever the evidence of the Vy. seems to counterbalance the possible preponderance of 
uncial authority for the latter reading,— as the plural has somewhat the appearance 
of an ‘explicatio’ (Mill, Prolegom. p. Lxxv) by referring apparently to Lois and 
Eunice, ch. i. 5,— as the singular gives an excellent sense, and by its union with 
amd Bpép. x. 7. A. points to the two sources of Timothy’s instruction, St. Paul, who 
taught him the Gospel, and his relatives who had previously taught him the Old 


Testament,— there seems suflicient reason 


14. od 5é «.7.A.] ‘ But do thou abide,’ 
ete. ; od in sharp contrast to the ‘ deceiv- 
ers’ of the foregoing verse ; méve in an- 
tithesis to mpéxorre. In the following 
words the relative & taken out of éy ois 

=éy éxelvois &) must be supplied, not 

only to @uades but emoraddns, which 
governing an accus. in the active (Thu- 
cyd. rv, 88), can also in the passive have 
an accus. appended to it according to the 
usual rule, Winer, Gram. § 32. 5, p. 204. 
Bretschneider (Zex. 8. v. mor.) and per- 
haps Syriac, connect év ois with emor.; 
this can be justified, see Psalm Ixxvii. 
87, but involves a less satisfactory mean- 
ing of the verb. emit tT édns| 
‘wert assured of,’ amplification of uadses ; 
vot ‘credita sunt tibi,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
Goth. (‘ gatruaida,’ a hint perhaps of the 
oceasional Latinizing of this Version), 
which would require émorevSns, but 
‘quorum firma fides tibi facta est,’ Ful- 
ler, ap. Pol. Syn. ; wera mAnpopoptas eu- 
a%es, Theophyl. ; compare Luke i. 4, Wa 
émvyv@s Thy acpdrciav. Tliorodv is prop- 
erly ‘to make morés’ (1 Kings i. 36, 
motéoca 6 @eds Td phua), thence in the 
pass. ‘ stabiliri,’ ‘confirmari’ (2 Sam. 
Vii. 16, mictwShoerat 6 oikos av’Tov, com- 
pare Psalm Ixxvyii. 8), and, with an ac- 
cus. objecti, ‘ plene certiorari ;’ compare 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 744, 
where this meaning of the verb is well 
21 


for retaining the reading of the text. 


explained and illustrated. 

€i5és] ‘knowing as thou dost,’ compare 
chap. ii. 23. On mapa tivos, see critical 
note. 

15. kal 71 k.7.A. does not seem par- 
allel to and co-ordinate with eidws k. 7. A., 
‘sciens...et quia nosti,’ Vulg., Beng.,.— 
ért having the meaning ‘because,’ and 
the participial construction ‘ per oratio- 
nem variatam’ (compare Winer, Gr. § 
63. 11. 1, p. 509), passing into the indic- 
ative,— but is rather to be considered as 
simply dependent upon eidds, the parti- 
cle é7: retaining its more usual meaning 
‘ that,’ and the direct sentence presenting 
a second fact which Timothy was to take 
into consideration : So aitias Ayer TOD 
Sev abtoy amepitpertov pevelv, STL TE ov 
mapa TOU TUXOVTOS Euades...Kal OTL ov IES 
kal mpdny Zuades, Theophyl. Both con- 
structions are, grammatically considered, 
equally possible, but the latter seems 
most satisfactory : the former is well de- 
fended by Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 
572. and Bpépouvs| 
‘from a very child,’ ‘ from infuncy ;? ék 
mpétns jAikias, Chrys. The expression is 
perhaps used rather than mad:dédev, Mark 


‘ix. 21 (Ree; Tisch. éx maudid3.), to mark 


still more definitely the very early age 
at which Timothy’s instruction in the 
Holy Scriptures commenced ; compare 
ch. i. 5. ‘Bpépos in two instances in the 


162 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. III. 15, 16. 


70 - \ 8 d , t > f Py x, 4 a b] 
oidas Ta OvvauEeva oe codical Els TWTNPLAV, CLA TIDTEWS THS EV 


XpiatG 'Inood. © waca ypady Sedmvevotos xal wpehipos T pos 


N. T. (Luke i. 41, 44) has its primary 
meaning, €uBpvov, Hesych. ; in all others 
(Luke ii. 12, 16, xviii. 15, Acts vii. 19, 
1 Pet. ii. 2, aprvyévynta Bp.) it points to 
a very early and tender age. This re- 
mark is of some little importance in ref- 
erence to Luke xviii. 15, where the as- 
censive or rather descensive force of xa) 
is not to be overlooked. 

Ta cepa ypduu.] ‘the sacred writings,’ 
z,e. of the Old Test., or, possibly with 
more lexical exactness,—-‘ sacras literas) 
Vulg., ‘ the principles of scriptural learn- 
ing’ (surely not /etters, in the ordinary 
educational sense, Hervey, Serm. on In- 
spir. p. 11); compare John vii. 15, Acts 
xxvi. 24, and see Meyer on both pas- 
sages. It is doubtful, however, whether 
this latter meaning is here suitable to the 
context, and whether ypduara does not 
simply mean ‘ writings’ (see Suicer, The- 
saur. 8. v. Vol. 1. p. 780), with perhaps 
the associated idea, which seems always 
to have marked this usage of the word 
in good Greek, of being expressed in 
solemn or formal language ; see especially 
Plato, Legg. 1x. p. 858 &, where it is in 
contrast with cvyypdupara, and ib. Gorg. 
p. 484 a, where comp. Stallbaum’s note. 
Thus then the statement in Htym. Magn., 
yedmmara éxdAovy of madaiol Ta cvyypdu- 
pata, will require modification. The 
expression is an G@maé. Aeydu. in N. T., 
but compare Joseph. Antig. Procem. § 3, 
Tay iepav ypduuara@v, and the numerous 
examples in Wetstein zn loc. The 
usual terms are 7 ypapn, ai ypapat, once 
ypapai ayo, Rom, i. 2; see below. 

Ta Suvdpmeval ‘which are able,’ not 
‘que poterant,’ Beng. The present is 
used conformably with the virtual pres- 
ent oidas, to denote the permanent, en- 
during property of the Holy Scriptures. 
coptaa| ‘to make wise ;’ compare Ps. 
XViil., 8, coplCovca vhimia; civ. 22, robs 


mpeaButépous gopioca, and with an accus. 
rei, cxvili. 98. This meaning must be 
retained without any dilution; copie 
is not merely equivalent to Siddonw, but 
marks the true wisdom which the Holy 
Scriptures, impart. The two preposi- 
tional clauses which follow, further spe- 
cify the object contemplated in the codi- 
oat, and the limitation under which alone 
that object could be attained. 

eis cwrnptay must be joined immedi- 
ately with copica:, pointing out the di- 
rection and destination of the wisdom, 
the object at which it aimed; 7 e&w yva- 
ois copiCe: Tov &vSpwmrov cis amdrny Kar 
codicuata Kal Aoyouaxtas.....aAAd& avTh 
[7 Sela yraous] copie eis cornpiay The- 
ophyl. 51a wlor. TIS 
k. 7. A.] ‘per fidem, eamque in Christo 
Jesu collocatam ;’ see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 
13. This clause cannot be joined with 
cwrnpiay (Heydenr.), as the article in 
such a case could not be dispensed with 
before did ; compare notes on Eph. i. 15, 
where the only cases in which such an 
omission can take place are recounted, 
The clause obviously limits the previous 
assertion; ‘those Scriptures he [the 
apostle] granteth were able to make him 
wise unto salvation, but he addeth 
through the faith which is in Christ,’ 
Hooker, Eccles. Pol. 1. 14. 4 (quoted by 
Bloomfield and Peile). In the same 
section the difference between the two 
Testaments is thus stated with admirable 
perspicuity ; ‘the Old did make wise by 
teaching salvation through Christ that 
should come, the New by teaching that 
Christ iscome.’? On mlotis év Xp., see 
notes on 1 Tim. i. 16. 

16. raca ypagph Sedmv.| * Every 
Scripture inspired by God is also useful,’ 
etc. ; so Origen expressly, waca yp., Se- 
bay. otoa, wper. eat, in Jos. Hom, x1x. 


Vol. 11. p. 443 (ed. Bened.), Syr. [both 


int 


Cuap. III. 16, 


2 TIMOTHY. 163 


diackariav, mpos EdeyXov, Tpos érravdpYwow, mpos Taidelay THY 


however omit xaf], Hammond, and the 
Vy. of Tynd. and Cranmer. In this 
important and much contested passage 
we must notice briefly (a) the construc- 
tion, (b) the force and meaning of the sep- 
arate words. It may be first remarked 
that the reading is not perfectly certain, 
kal being omitted in some Vv. (Vulg., 
Copt., Syr, Arr.) and Ff.; it seems, 
however, highly probable that this is due 
rather to non-observance of the true as- 
censive force of the particle than to any 
real absence in the original MSS. With 
regard then to (u) construction it is very 
difficult to decide whether (a) Sedav. is a 
part of the predicate, xa) being the sim- 
ple copula (Auth. Ver., al.) ; or whether 
(8) itis a part of the subject, cat being 
ascensive, and éot: being supplied after 
a@péAmios (as Clarom., Syr.-Philox., al ). 
Lexicography and grammar contribute 
but little towards a decision : for on the 
one hand, as ypapi) here apparently does 
mean Scripture (see below), the connec- 
tion by means of kal copulutivum is at 
first sight most simple and perspicuous 
(see Middleton in loc.); on the other 
hand, the epithet thus associated with 
mas and an anarthrous subst., is in a po- 
sition perfectly usual and regular (e. g. 
2 Cor. ix. 8, Eph. i. 3, 1 Thess. v. 22. 1 
Tim. v. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 21. iii. 17, iv. 18, 
Tit. i. 16, iii. 1, comp. iii. 2, al.), and in 
that appy. always assigned to it by St. 
Paul: contrast James iii. 16, 1 Pet. ii. 
13, where the change of position is appy. 
to mark the emphasis, see Winer, Gr. § 
59.2, p. 464. We are thus remanded 
wholly to the context: and here when we 
observe (1) on the negative side, the ab- 
sence of everything in the preceding vv. 
calculated to evoke such a statement,— 
the Seorvevotia of Scripture had not 
been denied even by implication, comp. 
Huther ; (2) that if cal be copulative, it 
wonld seem to associate two predica- 


tions, one relating to the essential char- 
acter of Scripture, the other to its prac- 
tical applicabilities, which appear scarcely 
homogeneous ; and (3), on the positive 
side, that the terms of verse 16 seem in 
studied and illustrative parallelism to 
those in verse 15, ypapi being more spe- 
cific than ypdpupara, Sedrv. than iepds (see 
Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 26), and kal der. 
k. T.A., showing the special aspects of 
the more general 7a dur. ce codioa, and 
with «al ascensive detailing, what copia 
might have been thought to fail to con- 
vey, the various practical applications of 
Scripture. When (4) we add that Chrys., 
—whose assertion taca ofv 7 To.wtrn 
Sedmrvevores [see below] would really be 
pointless if the declaration in the text 
were explicit—Theodoret (émed} x. 7. A., 
kal thy é€& ad’tay wperciay diddoKer), and, 
as far as we can infer from collocation of 
words, nearly all the best Vv., viz., Syr. 
(both), Wulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., 
apparently J&th., and in effect Arm. (in- 
serts copula after d:dacn.), all adopt con- 
struction (8), we have an amount of ex- 
ternal evidence, which coupled with the 
internal evidence, it seems impossible to 
resist. We decide, therefore, not with- 
out some confidence, in favor of (8) ; so 
Huther, Wiesinger, but not De Wette. 
We now notice (b) some individual ex- 
pressions. Taoa ypaph| 
‘every Scripture,’ not ‘tota Scriptura,’ 
Beza, Auth. Ver.,—a needless departure 
from the regular rules of grammar. Hof- 
mann (Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 572) and oth- 
ers (Hervey, al.) still defend this inexact 
translation, adducing Eph. ii. 21 ; but it 
may be observed, that in Eph. /. c. there 
are strong reasons for a deviation from 
the correct translation which do not ap- 
ply to the present case ; see notes in /oc. 
Here maca yp. implies every individual 
ypapy of those previously alluded to in 
the term fepa yp.; waa, mola; mepl fs 


164 


2: TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. III. 16, 17. 


év Sixavocivn, 17 wa apts 7 6 ToD Ocod avSpwros, mpos Tay 


épyov ayasov éEnpticpevos. 


cindy, dnot, Tac fepd....maoa ovy 7 ToLad- 
7™ Sedmvevoros, Chrys.; see (thus far) 
Middleton, Greek Art. p. 392, ed. Rose, 
compare also Lee, on Insp. Lect. v1. p. 
254 sq., and Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. 101. 
ypag? has by some interpreters been 
_ translated ‘ writing ;’ so apparently the 
twes noticed by Theoph., and perhaps 
Theodoret, 7@ diopicus xpnoduevos aréx- 
pwe T& Tis avSporivns coplas cuyypap- 
para. This, however, owing to the per- 
petual meaning of ypapi in the N. T., 
seems very doubtful. It may be observ- 
ed, indeed, that with the exception of 
this and four other passages (John xix. 
37, Rom. i. 2, xvi. 26, 2 Pet. i. 20), ypa- 
$7 Or ypapad always has the article, so 
that its absence might warrant the trans- 
lation. As, however, in John xix. 37, 
ypapy clearly involves its technical mean- 
ing, ‘another passage of Scripture,’ and 
as the context requires the same in 2 Pet. 
l. ec. (comp. Huth.), so here and in Rom. 
Ul. cc. there is no reason to depart from 
the current qualitative interpretation, es- 
pecially as the associated epithets, and 
here moreover the preceding fepd ypdup., 
show that that special meaning was in- 
disputably intended by the inspired wri- 
ter. SedmvevarTos is a 
passive verbal, see Winer, Gr. § 16. 3, 
p. 88; it simply denotes ‘inspired by 
God’ comp. Phocyl. 121, Sedmvevoros 
sopin, Plutarch, Mor. p. 904 F, robs dvel- 
pous Tovs Seomvevarous ; comp. Sedrvoos, 
Porphyr. de Antr. Nymph. p. 116), and 
‘only states what is more definitely ex- 


o> vy 
pressed by Syriac ohod| Luo->9 
{quod a Spiritu scriptum est] and still 
more by 2 Pet. i. 21, GAN’ bd mvebuaros 
aylov pepducvor €AdAnoay amd Ocod tvSpw- 
wo. Thus, then, without overstepping 
the proper limits of this commentary, we 
may fairly say, that while this pregnant 


and inclusive epithet yields no support 
to any artificial theories whether of a 
‘dynamical’ or a ‘ mechanical ’ inspira- 
tion, it certainly seems distinctly to 7m- 
ply (Comp. Chrys.,—in the other trans- 
lation it would formally enunczate) this 
vital truth, that every separate portion 
of the Holy Book is inspired, and forms 
a living portion of a living and organic 
whole; see (thus far) Hofmann, Schrifib. 
Vol. 1. p. 572, Reuss, Theol. Chreét. 111. 
8, Vol. 1. page 297. While, on the 
one hand, this expression does not ex- 
clude such verbal errors, or, possibly, 
such trifling historical inaccuracies as 
man’s spirit, even in its most exalted 
state, may not be wholly exempt from 
(comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. v.5, p. 
319), and human transmission and tran- 
scriptions may have increased, it still 
does certainly assure us, on the other, 
that these writings, as we have them, are 
individually pervaded by God’s Spirit, 
and warrants our belief that they are ras 
GAndseis |pioes] Mveduatos rod aylov, 
Clem. Rom. 1. 45, and our assertion of 
the full Inspiration of the Bible ; comp. 
Pref. to Galatians, p. xii (ed. 2). 

apos S:dackadtay refers, as De W. 
observes, to the theoretical or rather doc- 
trinal application of the Holy Scriptures ; 
the concluding expressions refer rather 
to their practical uses; see Beveridge, 
Serm. tx. Vol, 111. p. 150 (A.C. Libr.). 
Beza refers the two former ‘ ad dogmata,’ 
the two latter ‘ad mores,’ but mpds €Acyx- 
seems certainly to belong more to the 
latter, comp. ch. iv. 2,1 Tim. v. 20, Tit. 
Lien mpos €rteyXOY| 
‘ for reproof, confutation,’ éréykot Ta Wev- 
37, Chrysost., or better more generally, 
hav tov wapavouoy Blov, Theodoret ; 
compare Eph. v.11. The reading éAey- 
pov (Lachm. and Tischend., ed. 7 with 
ACFG; 4 mss.) deserves great consid- 


Guar. IH: 17, LV. 1. 


1 solemnly charge thee to 
be active and urgent, for 
evil teachers will abound. 
Discharge thy ministry ; 


oy bev Qui Et Ye 


165 


IV. Atapaptipouar évdriov tod Oeod Kai 
Xpictod "Incod tod péddovtos Kpive Covras 


mine is well nigh done, and Kal VEKpOUS, Kal THY éovpadveray avTod Kal THY 


my reward is ready. 


eration ; it occurs several times in the 
LXX. e. g. Lev. xix. 17, Numbers v. 18, 
2 Kings xix. 3, al.: the weight, however, 
of external, though not of uncial author- 
ity seems slightly in favor of the text. 

eTmavoépaswatyv| ‘correction,’ Syriac 

oo> 
I3502 [directionem, emendationem] ; 


Tapakadel Tous TapaTpaméytas emavehdelv 
eis thy evSeiay 6d6v, Theodoret. This 
word is an &. Aeydu. in N. T., but suffi- 
ciently common elsewhere, e. g. Philo, 
Quod Deus Imm. § 37, Vol. 1. p. 299, 
emavdpSwots Tod Blov, Arrian, Hpict. 111. 
16, ém) maideia Kat emavopSdaet Tov Biov, 
Polyb. Hist. 1. 35. 1, emavdpSwois tov 
Tov avSpomwy Biov, comp. also III. 7. 4, 
v. 88. 3, xxvar. 6. 12, al. The prep. 
emi is apparently not merely directive 
but intensive, implying restoration to a 
previous and better state, Plato, Republ. 
X. p. 604 D, éravopSodv 7d wecdy Te Kab 
voojoay ; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 1v. 
c. 5, Vol.1.p. 1046. The distinction be- 
tween éAeyx. and ézay. is thus not incor- 
rectly stated by Grot., * €Aéyxovrat inve- 
recundi, émavopSotvra teneri, fragiles.’ 

matdelav x. 7.A.| ‘discipline which is 
in righteousness ;’ not exactly ‘que ve- 
ram perfectamque justitiam affert,’ Just., 
compare Theophilact, but which has its 
proper sphere of action in righteousness, 
—in that which is conformable to the 
law of God. Conybeare, in translating 
the clause ‘ righteous discipline,’ seems 
to regard éy merely equivalent to the 
‘ Beth essentix ;’ this, however, appears 
untenable ; compare Winer, Gr. § 29. 2. 
obs. p. 166. On the proper meaning of 
matdeta (‘ disciplinary instruction,’ a mean- 
ing which Theodoret, al., here unnecessa- 
rily obscure), see notes on Eph. -vi. 4; 
and-on d:xaocbvn, see notes on 1 Tim. 


vi. 11. Thus to state the uses of Holy 
Scripture in the briefest way ; it diddorer 
the ignorant, éAéyxe: the evil and preju- 
diced, émavopSot the fallen and erring, 
and maSever ev dix. all men, especially 
those that need bringing to fuller meas- 
ures of perfection. For a good sermon 
on the sufficiency of Scripture see Beve- 
ridge, Sermon ux. Vol. 111. p. 144 sq. 
A.-C. Libr.). 

17. 6 rod Oeod &vSpwros| ‘the 
man of God. The very general reference 
of the context seems to show clearly that 
here at least this is certainly not an offi- 
cial designation, ‘the servant of God,’ 
‘the evangelist’ (Beng., De Wette), but, 
the Christian generally, ‘qui se Deo pe- 
nitus devovit,’ Just. : see Philo, de Nom. 
Mut. § 3, Vol. 1. page 582, where &y&p. 
@cod is used in a similar extended refer- 
ence, and compare notes on 1 Tim. vi. 
ile &pt.os| ‘complete,’ in 
all parts and proportions (‘ in quo nihil 
mutilum,’ Caly.), an @mat Acydu. in the 
N. T., explained more fully by the ééyp- 
tiopevos which follows. A substantially 
correct definition is given by Greg. Nyss. 
in Eccl, v. Vol. 1. p. 432, &ptios rdvtws 
éexeivds éort, @ TeAclws 6 THs Picews TU"- 
memAhpwrat Adyos: thus &prios is opposed 
to xwrds and «oAoBés,— comp. Lucian, 
Sacrif: § 6, where he speaks of Vulcan 
as ov &ptios TH médde, and see Suicer, 
Thesaur.s. v. Vol. 1.515. It is not easy 
to state positively the distinction between 
réAetos and &prios, as in practice the two 
words seem nearly to interchange mean- 
ings ; e. g.compare Philo, de Plant. Noe, 
§ 29, Vol. 1. p. 347, &ptiov kar dAdKAnpov 
with James i. 4, réAciot Kat dAdKANpoL: AS 
a general rule &prios seems to point to 
perfection in regard of the adaptation of 
parts (‘qui suam_ retinet compagem,’ 


166 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuapr. IV. 1, 2° 


/ n 
Bactheiav abtod, 2% kipufov Tov NOyou, erriaTtyS: evealpws axalpas, 
ot / fal 
édeyEor, erutipyoov, TapaKdneo on, év Tdon paKkpoSupia Kal Sway. 


Just.) and the special aptitude for any 
given uses ; TéAeos, like‘perfectus’ com- 
pare Doederlein, Synon. Vol. 1v. 366), 
seems to imply a more general and abso- 
lute perfection ; comp.. Matth. v. 48. 
mpds wav «.7.A.] ‘fully made ready 
for, furnished for, every good work :’ ééapt. 
(wAnpo?, teAetot. Hesych.) is a dis Acydu. 
in the N. T.; see Acts xxi. 5, where, 
however, it is used somewhat differently, 
in reference apparently to the completion 
of a period of time; see Meyer in loc. It 
occurs in its present sense, Joseph. Ant. 
Til. 2. 2, nad@s e&npticuévous, compare 
Lucian, Ver. Hist.1.33, TuAAa é&qpric To. 
The compound katapti¢w is of frequent 
occurrence, In accordance with the 
view taken of 6 Tov @cov &vSp., the words 
mav py. ay. must obviously be referred, 
not specially to the épyov ebayyedrorod, 
ch. iv. 5 (De Wette), but to any good 
works generally ; so Huth., Wiesing., and 
Leo. 


CHarrer IV.1. S:apaptvpopat| 
‘I solemnly charge thee ;? see notes on 1 
Tim. v.21. The words ody éyd, inserted 
after diau. in Rec. [with D!K ;—Syr.- 
‘Phil., Theod. omit éyé, others ody], are 
rightly rejected by Griesb. Tisch., Lachm., 
as ‘injecta ob cohzrentiam,’ Mill, Prole- 
gom. p. exxix. The insertion of tod 
Kup. before Xp. "Ino. [’1. X., Rec.], is sim- 
ilarly untenable. TOD méd- 
Aovtos x«.7.A.] ‘who shall hereafter 
judge the quick and dead:’ clearly those 
alive at His coming, and the dead, Chrys. 
2 (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, 1 Thess. iv. 
16,17), not ‘the spiritually alive and 
dead,’ Gyuaprwrovs Aéyet kai dixalovs, 
Chrys. 1, Peile. The mention of the 
solemn account which ad/ must render is 
not without emphasis in its application 
to Timothy ; he had a weighty office in- 
trusted to him, and of that His Lord ei- 


Sivas amathoe (Chrys.). rah 
thy émipdverayv| ‘and (I solemnly 
charge thee) by His manifestation.” The 
reading xara [ Rec. with D?EKL; Goth., 
Syr. (both) ; Theod. al.] is here rightly 
rejected by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., with 
ACD'FG; 17. 67**; Am., Harl., al., 
for the less easy caf. With this latter 
reading the most natural construction 
seems to be the connection of thy emp. 
with diauapr. as the usual accus. in adju- 
ration; compare Mark v. 7, Acts xix. 
13, 1 Thess. v. 27. As the foregoing 
évémov could not be joined with ém@., 
x. T.A., the nouns naturally pass into 
the accusative ; so Vulg., Clarom., ‘ per 
adventum ejus,’ comp. 1 Cor. xy. 31. 
De Wette regards thy em. as the accus. 
objecti, e. g. Deut. iv. 26, diay. duty rév 
Te ovpavoy Kat Ti viv; this seems unde- 
sirable, as it involves a change of mean- 
ing of the verb in the two clauses. 

kal thy Bao. avtod| ‘and by His 
kingdom ;’ no év 814 dvotv, ‘ the revelation 
of His kingdom’ (Syr., Beng.), nor an 
expression practically equivalent to rhy 
ém. avr. (Calv.), but introductory of a 
second subject of thought,— ‘ and by His 
kingdom’ (observe the rhetorical repeti- 
tion of adrod), that kingdom (regnum glo- 
ric) which succeeding the ‘ modificated 
eternity’ of His mediatorial kingdom 
(reynum gratia) is to commence at His 
émipdy., and to know neither end nor 
modification ; see Pearson, Creed, Art. 
vi. Vol. 1. p. 335 (ed. Burt.). 

2 «hpvtov] ‘proclaim,’ ‘ preach.’ 
‘Notanda est diligenter illatio, qua apte 
Scripturam (chap. iii. 16) cum pradica- 
tione connectit,’ Calvin. The solemn 
charge is not succeeded as in 1 Tim. v. 
21 by wa with the subj., nor by the inf. 
as in 2 Tim. ii. 14, but with unconnected 
yet emphatic aorists; compare the very 
similar instance in 1 Thess. v. 14. Ex- 


Cuar. IV. 2, 3. 


8 


2 TIMOTHY. 167 


” \ \ ey a ig 7 Py 5 b) DLA 
EOTAL yep KaLpos OTE TIS VYLALVOVONS Ob acKkaXlas OUK avé£ovTat, 


, / o 
ONG Kata Tas (Olas émr’Supias EavTots Ertawpevcovow SidacKddovs 


amples of such asyndeta are, as might be 
expected, not uncommon in a style so 
forcible and sententious as that of St. 
Paul: see the list in Winer, Gir. § 60. 1, 
p. 475. The aor. is here used rather 
than the present, as in 1 Thess. J. c., be- 
ing more suitable to the vivid nature of 
the address; see Winer, Gr. § 60. 2, p. 
476. The distinction in the N. T. be- 
tween the imper., aor., and pres. can 
usually be satisfactorily explained, but it 
must not be forgotten that even in classi- 
cal authors the change of tense seems of- 
ten due to the ‘lubitus aut affectus lo- 
quentis,’ see Schoemann, Jsceus, p. 235. 

émlatn di] ‘ be attentive,’ ‘ be ready,’ 


> i > 
{Zopusu $0000 [et sta in dili- 


gentiad] Syr. This, on the whole, seems 
the simplest translation of émorivac: 
while it scarcely amounts quite to 
stare,’ Vulg., it is certainly stronger than 
émiweve, 1 Tim. iv. 16, and appears to 
mark an attitude of prompt attention 
that may at any moment pass into ac- 
tion ; comp. Demosth. Paz/. 11. 70 (cited 
by De Wette), eyphryopev. épéotnker, Po- 
lyb. Hist. 1. 83. 2, émirras 5€—peydrnv 
éroteito omovdnv. It naturally points to 
the preceding xnpvéov (comp. Theod.), 
which it slightly strengthens and ex- 
pands ; ‘preach the word, and be alive 
to the importance of the duty, ever ready 
to perform it, in season and out of sea- 
son ;’ so, in effect, Theophyl., wera ém- 
fovfs Kal émiotacias AdAnoor, except that 
the action, rather than the readiness to 
action, is made somewhat too prominent. 
De Wette and Huther (after Bretschn. 
Lex.) retain the semi-local use ‘ accede ad 
ceetus Christianos,’ a meaning lexically 
tenable (see examples in Schweigh. Lex. 
Polyb. s. v. p. 211), but involving an el- 
lipsis which St. Paul would hardly have 
made, when trois adeAgois x. T. A. could 


‘ 


in- 


so easily have been supplied: see Leo in 
loc. evKalpws aralpws] 
‘in season, out of seuson;’ an oxymo- 
ron, made still more emphatic by the 
omission of the copula ; compare ‘nolens 
volens, ultro citro,’ ete., Winer, Gr. § 
58.7, p. 461. De Wette cites, as from 
Wetstein, Nicetas Choniat. (a Byzantine 
historian), edxalpws akalpws emmAhrrey, 
but the citation is due to Bengel. The 
Greek commentators principally refer the 
evkatpia and akapta to Timothy; wh ra- 
poy exe wpiocpevoy, ael cor Kaipds zoTw, 
Chrysost.: Calv., Beng, and others to 
both Timothy and his hearers. The con- 
text seems to show that the latter (comp. 
verse 3) are principally, if not entirely, 
in the apostle’s thoughts, and that the 
adverbs will be referred most naturally 
alone to them; compare Augustine in 
Psalm exxviii., ‘sonet verbum Dei vo- 
lentibus opportune, nolentibus impor- 
tune.’ €rXevéov| ‘ reprove,’ 
‘convict them of their want of holiness 
and truth ;’ compare chap. iii. 16, mpds 
éAeyxov: the stronger-term, émriwnoov 
(Jude 9), ‘rebuke as blameworthy,’ suita- 
bly follows. There is some parallelism 
between the verbs here and the nouns ch. 
iii. 16, but it is not by any means exact ; 
emitiunoov cannot tally with éravdpSwots, 
nor indeed raparddA. with madela (Leo), 
if the usual force of the latter word be re- 
tained. The change of order in FG al. ; 
Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Goth., al., Zreyé. 
Tapak., emit. seems due to a desire to 
preserve a kind of climax. 

évy taon Kk. T.A.| ‘in all long-suffering 
and teaching,’ ‘in every exhibition of long- 
suffering and every method of teaching ;’ 
clause appended not merely to mapakda. 
(Huth.), but, asin Lachm., Tisch. (so also 
Chrys.), to the three preceding verbs, to 
each one of which, especially the first 
(Chrys., Calv.), it prescribes suitable re- 


168 


2TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. IV. 3, 4. 


KVNSOMEvor THY aKonV, 4 Kal amo pev THs adAnSelas THY aKony 


‘ 


strictions. The extensive rather than the 
intensive (Chrys.%) force of mas may be 
clearly seen in this combination ; it gives 
both abstract nouns, espec. the former, 
a concrete application, see notes on Kph. 
i. 8. There is thus no reason for sup- 
posing an éy 6:4 Svoz (Grot.), or for tam- 
pering with the normal meaning of 8:da- 
xn, scil. ‘ teaching,’— not ‘studium do- 
cendi,’ Heinr., Flatt, ‘ readiness to teach,’ 
Peile. It may be remarked that ddax7 
is only used twice in the Past. Epistles, 
here and in Tit. i. 9, while d:dacKaAla 
occurs no less than fifteen times. As a 
very general rule, (teaching) 
seems to point more to the act, d:dacKa- 
Ala (doctrine) more to the substance or 
result of teaching ; compare e. g., Thu- 
cyd. 1v. 126, where 65ax7% is joined with 
a verbal in -ows, mapaxeAevois. This dis- 
tinction, however, cannot be pressed in 
the N. T., for compare 1 Cor. xiv. 26, 
and observe that all the other writers in 
the N. T. (except James, Peter, Jude, 
who use neither,) use only d:5ax7; Mat- 
thew xv. 9 and Mark vii. 7 are quota- 
tions. It is just possible that the more 
frequent use of d:dacxaAta in these Epp. 
may point to their later date of composi- 
tion, when Christian doctrine was assum- 
ing a more distinct form; but we must 
be wary in such assertions, as in St. 
Paul’s other Epp.{we do not include 
Heb.) didaxy and SidacKn. occur exactly 
an equal number of times. 

3. €otat yap xatpéds] ‘ For there 
shall be a time;’ argument drawn from 
the future to urge diligence in the pres- 
ent ; mply h extpaxnAwdjvat, wookaTdAda- 
Be mavtas avrovs, Chrys. It is singular 
that Beng. should force éora: ‘ ertt et jam 
est,’ as the allusion to the future is dis- 
tinctly similar to that in 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2 
Tim. ii. 16, 17, iii. 1. On dytatvouca 
didack., see notes on 1 Tim. i. 10. 
avétovtat] ‘will not endure, put up 


5.6ax) 


2 


with ;’ ‘sordet iis doctrina vera quia eo- 
rum cupiditatibus adversatur,’ Leo. *Avé- 
Xouoe occurs several times in St. Paul’s 
Epistles, but usually with persons ; com- 
pare however 2 Thess. i. 4, rats SAhbeow 
ais avéxeode. In the following words 
observe the force of idias; their selfish 
lusts (surely not ‘inclinations,’ Conyb.) 
are what they especially follow in the 
choice of teachers. 

étmicwpevoovarty| ‘will heap up, 
‘ will gather round them a rabble, a cup- 
gerév, of teachers ;’ 
Tov didarkdAwy bia Tod cwpevcovat €d7- 
Awoe, Chrysost. The compound form 
(em = ‘hinzu;’ addition, aggregation, 
Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.y. éml, 0. 4) only 
occurs here and Cant. ii. 4 (Symm.) ; 
the simple, ch. iii. 6, and Rom. xii. 20; 
add Job xiv. 17 (Symm.). 
Kyndduevot THY &konr| ‘having 
itching ears,’ Auth. Ver., ‘ prurientes au- 
ribus,’ Vulg. sim. Clarom.,— both ex- 
cellent translations ; ‘ metaphora desump- 
ta a. scabiosis quibus cutis prurit adeo ut 
scalpendi libidine ardeant,’ Suicer, The- 
saur. 8. ¥.: this itch for novelty, the false 
teachers gratified ; comp. Philo, Quod Det. 
Pot. § 21, Vol. 1. p. 205 (ed. Mang.), amox- 
vatovot ryody [ot copioral| nuey Ta Bra. 
Kyfdiw (connected with xvdw, Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 254) in the act. is ‘ to scratch,’ 
in the middle, ‘to scratch one’s self’ 
(Arist. Hist. An. 1x. 1), in the pass. ‘ to be 
scratched or tickled,’ and thence (as appy. 
here) ‘ prurire’ in a tropical sense, (nrety 
7 aKxotoa KaX ndovny, Hesych., réprov- 
Tas Thy aKony em ntodvtes, Chrys. In 
the present passage Theod. and Theoph. 
(not Chrys., as De Wette asserts), and 
so too, it would seem, Goth., al.,—unless 
they read kxvnSdvtas—take kvnSdu. as 
purely passive, paraphrasing it by tep- 
méuevor: this does not seem so forcible ; 
the apostle does not appear to desire 
merely to notice the fact that they were 


Td GdidKplTov TARSOs 


CHap. IV. 4, 5. 


> , \ \ uA > tA 
amootpéyovow, émt dé Tods pSous éxtparnjcovTat. 


Pee O Pt ¥ . 


169 


5 ad 8 


a n $24 4 A 
vnpe ev TAoW, KaKOoTAaSHGOY, Epyov Toincoyv evayyedoTod, TIV 


having their ears tickled, but to mark 
the uneasy feeling that always was seek- 
ing to be gratified. A word of sim- 
ilar meaning, yapyadi(@, is found occa- 
sionally in similar applications: comp. 
Lucian, de Calumn. 21, cited by Wetst. 
in loc. On the accus. arofy, see notes on 
1 Zim. vi. 5. 

4, nal awd xn.7.A.] ‘and will turn 
away their ears from the truth.’ 'The re- 
sult is a complete turning away from 
every doctrine of Christian truth; dpas 
étt ovX ws GyvoodvTEs TpPdAAOVTAL GAN 
éxovtes, Theophyl. On the piso, com- 
pare notes on 1 Tim. i. 4; it must be ob- 
served, however, that as the reference is 
future, their nature cannot be specifically 
defined ; still, as throughout these Epp., 
the errors of the future seem represented 
only as exaggerations and expansions of 
the present, the allusion is probably sub- 
stantially the same. The use of the ar- 
ticle (as in Tit. i. 14) is thus also more 
intelligible. éxtTpathaoor- 
tat] ‘will turn themselves aside ;’ pass., 
apparently with a middle force, as in 1 
Tim. i. 6, v. 15; see Winer, Gr. § 39. 2, 
p. 233, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 6, p. 361 
sq., and the examples in notes on 1 Tim. 
i. 6. 

5. ot dé] ‘ But do thou:’ in marked 
'. contrast to the false teachers; compare 
ch. iii. 10. vipe év Tacty| 
‘be sober in all things,’ ‘sobrius esto,’ 
Clarom., Goth., not ‘be watchful,’ Syr., 
Vulg. Nipew is connected with ypnyo- 
petv, 1 Thess. v. 6, 1 Pet. v. 8, but is by 
no Means synonymous with it (Huth.) ; 
both here and in all other passages in the 
N. T., it implies ‘ sobriety,’ literal or me- 
taphorical ; comp. notes on 1 Tim. iii. 2. 
Theodoret here, and the Greek expositors 
on other passages, all seem to refer it to 
-‘ wakefulness,’ apparently of an intensive 
nature, émitacis éypnydprews Td vhpev, 


cum. on 1 Tim, 1. c., vhpew kad dieyn- 
yépsat, ib. in loc., and there are a few 
passages in later writers (e. g. Polybius, 
Hist. xv. 21. 4, émordoews kal vipbews) 
which seem to favor such a meaning; 
still, in the present case, and in the N. 
T. generally, there seem no sufficient 
grounds for departing from the regular 
use and applications of the word. The 
derivation is doubtful, but it does not 
seem improbable that the idea of drinking 
is involved in the root. Benfey ( Wur- 
zellex. Vol. 11. p. 74) derives it from yn 
and ep. compared with Sanscr. ap, ‘ wa- 
ter ;’ compare eb-rius, 
kKakomadsnoov] ‘suffer afflictions ;’ 
aor. imp. following the pres. imp., possi- 
bly with some degree of emphasis; see 
notes on ver. 2, and on 1 Tim. vi. 12. 
evayyeAtotod| ‘of an evangelist :’ 
the evayyeAtoral did not form a special 
and separate class, but were, generally, 
preachers of the Gospel in different coun- 
tries, subordinates and missionaries of 
the apostles; compare Euseb, Hist. Eccl. 
III. 27, amodnulas oreAACuevon, pov éme- 
TéAow evayyeAicTay, and see Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1234, and notes 
on Eph. iv.11. This was the work to 
which Tim. was called when he journeyed 
with St. Paul (Acts xvi. 3); the same 
duties, as far as preaching the Gospel to 
all within the province of his ministra- 
tion, still were to be performed. The 
sphere was only more circumscribed, but 
there would be many occasions on jour- 
neys, etc., ver. 9, when Timothy could 
resume the functions of an evayyeA. in 
their fullest sense; comp. Taylor, Epis- 
copacy, § 14, Hofmann, Schrijfib. Vol. 11. 
2, p. 250. The term épyoy has proba- 
bly an allusion to the laborious nature of 
the duties; see notes on ch. ii. 15, and 
compare examples in Raphel, Obs. Vol. 
Il. p. 622. rAnpopopnaoyw 
22 


170 


Poe: 1 us by OL i 5 Ge 


Cuap. IV. 6. 


Svaxoviay cov mAnpoddpnaov. ° Eye yap dn omrévSouar, Kad 6 


diakoviar] ‘ fully perform thy ministry ;’ 
‘ministerium tuum imple,’ Vulg., Cla- 
YOM. ; TAnpod. TouTéaT1 TANpwoov, Chrys. 
Beza translates rAnpop. somewhat artifi- 
ficially, ‘ ministerii tui plenam fidem fa- 
cito,’ 7. e. ‘ veris argumentis comproba ;’ 
this is unnecessary, it is here nearly sy- 
nonymous with, though perhaps a little 


“% 
stronger than 7Afpwoor, so [absolve, 


adimple], ‘ usfullei,’ Goth.; comp. rhv 
Siaxovlay mAnpody, Acts xii. 25, Col. iv. 
17, see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 
753. It apparently differs only from the 
more simple form in being a /ittle more 
intensive in meaning. 

6. éya yap] ‘ For I,” éyd, with em- 
phasis in reference to the preceding ov. 
The force of yap is differently explained ; 
it does not enforce the exhortation by 
showing Timothy he must soon rely on 
himself alone (‘natare incipis sine cor- 
tice,’ Caly.), nor urge him to imitation, 
compare ver. 7 (Heinr.) but, as the con- 
cluding words of ver. 5 seem to confirm, 
urges him to additional zeal on account 
of the apostle’s departure; ‘tuum est 
pergere quo ceepi,’ Leo. On the differ- 
ent modes of explaining the connection, 
see Alf. on ver. 5 sq. 

Hd5n omévdopuat] ‘am already being 
poured out (as a drink-offering) ;’ his 
present sufferings form the commence- 
ment of the ‘libatio’; not ‘I am now 
ready to be offered’ (Auth. Ver.), which 
slightly infringes on the exact force of 
H5n and orév5. The particle #5y is not 
simply equivalent to viv, but in its pri- 
mary use appears rather to denote what 
is ‘near to the here’ Comp. Herod. 111. 
5, amd ravrns Hn Avyumtos), and thence 
by an intelligible transition, ‘ what is 
near to the now,’ calling attention to 
what is taking place ‘on the spot’ and 
‘at the moment,’ e.g. Aristoph. Ran. 
527, ov tax’ GAN Hdn mod; see esp. Rost 
u. Palm, Ler. s. vy. 6, where this particle 


is well discussed. Klotz (Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 598) is thus far right in not refer- 
ring #5 originally to time, but his deri- 
vation from 757, ‘novi,’ is as hopeless 
as that of Hartung (Partik. Vol. 1. p. 
223), who refers the 5) to the Sanscrit 
dina, ‘a day,’ and makes the particle 
originally temporal; compare Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 201.  Zrévdoua, ‘ delibor,’ 
Vulg. (not middle ‘sanguinem meum 
libo,’ Wahl, and certainly not ‘ aspergor 
vino,’ sc. ‘ preeparor (ad mortem,’ Grot.), 


is not synon. with Svoua Li Lajas 


{[jugulor, sacrificor], Syr., but points to 
the drink-offering of wine which among 
the Jews accompanied the sacrifice (Num. 
xv. 5, xxviii. 7), and was poured zrepi 
Tov Bwudy (Joseph. Antig. 111. 9. 4, com- 
pare Ecclus. 1. 15), while among the 
heathen it was commonly poured upon 
the burning victims (Smith, Dict. Antig. 
Art. ‘Sacrificium’). See the very simi- 
lar passage Phil. ii. 17, in which, how- 
ever, there is no reason to refer the allu- 
sion to this laiter Gentile practice, as 
Jahn, Antig. § 378, and apparently Sui- 
cer, Thesaurus, 8. v.; see Meyer in loc. 
Chrysostom urges the use of o7évd. not 
Stoua, because rhs pev Svolas ov 7d way 
dvapéperar TH OeG, THs Se omovdns 7d 
éAov: the allusion seems rather to the 
apostle’s anticipated bloody death; see 
Waterl. Distinct. of Sacr. § 10, Vol. v. 
p- 264. &varktvaoews] ‘de- 


arture ;’ not ‘ resolutionis,’ Vulgate 
P gate, 


{Lua}, [ut dissolvar] Syr., compare 
Goth. ‘ disvissdis, but ‘ discessus e vita,’ 
Loesner, amd roy mapdyta eis &AAOv Kéo- 
pov, Coray (Romaic); compare Phil. i. 
23, émiduplay Exwv eis Td avarddoau. There 
is no reason whatever for adopting the 
explanation of Elsner (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
317) who refers aydaA. to ‘ discessus e 
convivio,’ compare Luke xii. 36, and 
oréydou. to the libations of the parting 


Cuar. IV. 7, 


er Delonte O)AoED Ye: 


171 


an ol ei rn 
Kapos TAS €uhs avadvoews édéotnxev. 7 Tov ayava Tov KaAOY 


guests: the term is perfectly general, 
compare Philo, Flac. § 21, Vol. 1. p. 
544 (ed. Mang.), thy é« rov Biov reAev- 
Taiavy avadvow, 1b. § 18, p. 5384. Jo- 
seph. Antig. x1x. 4. 1, Clem. Rom. 1. 
44; see also Deyling, Obs. Vol. 11. No. 
46, p. 540, who has commented upon the 
whole of this and the following verses. 
with his usual ponderous learning. His 
interpretation of omévd., scil. SvordCouat, 
is, however, incorrect. Lachm. reads 
avadvoeds pov with ACEFG; al. (5)3 
Vulg. (ed.), Copt., Arm. ; Euseb., Ath., 
al. The authorities are of considerable 
weight, but perhaps scarcely sufficient to 
make it necessary to change the reading 
of Tisch. Nearly exactly the same may 
be said of rév Kaddy ayava (Lachm.) in 
the next verse; see the critical notes of 
Tisch. in loc. epéotnker] ‘is at 
hand,’ Auth. Ver.; surely not ‘hath been 
nigh at hand,’ Hamm., nor ‘ist vorhan- 
den,’ Luther, compare Goth. ‘ atist’ [ad- 
est], but, ‘stands by’ (Acts xxii. 20), 
‘is all but here,’ ‘ steht nahe bevor,’ Hu- 
ther; comp. Acts xxviii. 2, and notes on 
ver. 2. 

7. Tov &y@va Toy Kadrddy] ‘ the 
good strife, scil. mf{arews; see] Tim. 
vi. 12. The repetition of the article with 
the epithet gives force and emphasis ; 
ovtos 6 dyav Kadds ; val, pnow" brép yap 
Xp. ylyverat, Chrys.; compare Green, 
Gramm. p. 165. The metaphor itself is 
thus nobly expanded by Chrys.; ovdéev 
TovTov BéATLOv TOU aya@vos* ov AauBdver 
Tédos 6 oTEepavos OvTOS’ OUTOS OK &Td Ko- 
tlywy eorly, ov exer &vSpwmrov aywvode- 
THY, odK ExEL GvIpmmous SeaTds* amd ay- 
yerwy obyKertat 7 Sedrpov. How amply 
does this great expositor repay perusal. 
hydéviopat| ‘1 have striven;’ the full 
force of the perfect is here very distinctly 
apparent ; the struggle itself was now all 
out over, little more than the effects were 
remaining ; ‘notat actionem plane pre- 


teritam, qu aut nunc ipsum, seu modo 
finita est, aut per effectus suos durat,’ 
Poppo, de emend. Matth. Gr. p. 6 : his 
character and claim to the crown were 
now fully established, see Green, Gramm. 
p. 23. The more general agonistic met- 
aphor then passes into the specific one of 
the course; mas d€ reréAeke Toy Spduov ; 
THY OinoUMEernY Emacay mepijAdev, Chrys. ; 
‘ finivi cursum non tam vite quam mune- 
ris,’ Leo. See especially Acts xx. 24, 
where the apostle expresses his resolution 
to do, what now he is able to speak of 
as done, sc. reAes@oat Toy Spduov mov Kal 
THY Sioxoviay ty €daBov mapa tov Kuptou 
Inood (Tisch.). TET H- 
pnka thy mwlartiv] ‘1 have kept the 
Jaith ;’ the faith entrusted to me I have 
kept as a sacred and inviolable deposit ; 
compare 2 Tim. i. 14. TWiorts is not 
‘fidelity’ (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 375, 
Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 623), but 
‘fuith’ in its usual and proper sense ; 
‘res bis per metaphoram expressa nunc 
tertio loco exprimitur proprie,’ Beng. In 
this noble passage, so calculated to cheer 
the sorrowing heart of Timothy (Chrys.), 
yea, so full of unutterable consolation to 
every thoughtful Christian, Chrysostom 
confesses to have long felt a difficulty 
(amopa@y SieréAovy) ; and even still De 
Wette finds in it only an opposition to 
the apostle’s usual humility (1 Cor. iv. 
3 sq.), and but a doubtful adaptation of 
Phil. iii. 12 sq. It is true in both pas- 
sages the same metaphor is used; but 
the circumstances and application are 
wholly different ; in the one case it is the 
trembling anxiety of the watchful, labor- 
ing minister, in the other, it is the blessed 
assurance vouchsafed to the toil-worn, 
dying servant of the Lord ; see especially 
Waterland, Sermon xxv. Vol. v. p. 679, 
Hammond, Pract. Catech. 1. 3, p. 41 
(A.-C. Libr.), also Neander, Planting, 
Vol. 1. p. 346 (Bohn). 


172 


AYOVLC UAL, TOV Spomov TETENEKA, THY TiCTLY TETHPNKA 


2 TI MOT HY . 


Cuap. IV. 8. 


8 ouzrov. 


by / / € n YA / aA > / c uA 
amoKertal wot 6 THS SuKatoacvvys oTépavos, dv aTrod@cet pot 0 Kv- 


> > AL: PA e / / > / ere \ > 5 
ptos év éxelvn TH Huépa, 6 Sixavos KpiTys, ov wovov Sé euol GA 


Kal TaoW TOS HYaTNKOoWW THY emipdveray avToOd. 


8. Aotwov is not for Tov Aourov or Td 
Aourdy, as any reference, whether to a 
period in the future, or to duration in 
the future (see notes on Gal. yi. 17), 
would not accord with the present pas- 
sages; nor can it be for #8, which, if 
admissible in later writers (Schzefer, Zon- 
gin. p. 400, cited by De W.), is not dem- 
onstrable in St. Paul’s Epistles. The 
context seems to show that it is in its 
most literal meaning, ‘quod reliquum 
est’ (Beza), sufficiently preserved in 


oo 
translation by the Syriac Lac _ 


[a nunc], ‘ henceforth,’ Auth. Ver. This 
adverbial adjective is very frequently 
used in Polybius; often, as here, at the 
beginning of sentences, e. g. Hist. 11. 68. 
9, rv. 82. 5, x. 45. 2, but usually in the 
sense ‘ proinde igitur,’ and answering to 
our ‘ further,’ ‘furthermore :’ a more dis- 
tinctly temporal use occurs Hist. 1. 12. 
4, where it is carried on by 7d 5 TeAev- 
Tatov. amdékertat] ‘is 
reserved,’ ‘ reposita est,’ Vulg., Clarom. 
The verb amoxcioSa: is applied both to 
future rewards, as here and Col. i. 5, éA- 
mda Thy amoKem. év Tos ovpavois (comp. 
Matth. vi. 20, xix. 21), and to future 
punishments (Plato, Locr. § 12, p. 104 pD), 
and in fact to anything which is set aside, 
as it were a treasure, for future uses and 
applications ; compare Philo, Quod Det. 
Pot. § 34, Vol. 1. p. 216 (ed. Mang.), 
Kaddmep Ta GmroKeméeva ev oKdTw KéKpuT- 
tot, compare Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
320. 6 THs Stkatogirns 
até.| ‘the crown of righteousness ;’ re- 
sumption of the former metaphor. The 
genitival relation is not perfectly clear, 
owing to the different meanings. which 
5ixatoovvn may receive. As this subst. 
appears in all cases in these Epistles to 


have not a dogmatical, but a practical ref- 
erence (see notes on 1 Yim. vi. 11), se. 
thy kaxddou aperqy, Chrys., the gen. will 
most naturally be objecti, ‘ the crown for 
which (so to speak), Siouootdvn has a 
claim,’ BpaBeioy d:dduevoy eis THy dikato- 
atvnv, Coray (Romaic), and is in fact a 
sort of (proleptic) gen. possessivus ; com- 
pare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7.6 sq. Hu- 
ther and Leo, with less probability, make 
it the genitive of apposition, comparing 
James i. 12, 1 Peter v. 4, Rev. ii. 10, 
where, however, (wi and dea are not 
strictly analogous with the present use of 
dxavoobyy. amrodadaet} 
‘will give, ‘reddet,’ Vulg. In this com- 
pound the amd does not necessarily con- 
vey any sense of due (acavel tiva aperrdy 
kal xpéos, Theophyl.), though such a 
meaning can be grammatically sustain- 
ed, and confirmed by occasional exam- 
ples; compare Winer, de Verb. Comp. 
Iv. p. 138. Here, and for the most part 
elsewhere, the preposition only seems to 
allude to the reward as having been laid 
up, and taken as out of some reserved 
treasures ; ‘ ibi hujus verbi sedes propria 
est, ubi quid de aliqua copia das,’ Wi- 
ner, p. 12; compare in a contrary sense, 
Rom. ii. 6, and see notes on Gal. iv. 5. 

év éxelvn TH Hm] ‘in that day,’ scil. 
of final retribution. The expression 
éxeivn 7 Huepa is used three times in this 
Epistle, ch.i. 12, 18, and once in 2 Thess. 
i. 10, there referring more exclusively to 
the coming of the Lord; see Reuss, 
Theol. Chrét. 1v. 21, Vol. 11. p. 243. 
The following words, 6 Sikaos xpirhs, 
stand in apposition to 6 Kupios with great 
weight and emphasis : how this declara- 
tion of God’s justice is out of harmony 
with St. Paul’s views of grace (De W.), 
it is difficult to conceive. The apostle, 


ay 


Crap. IV. 9, 10. 


Come to me; all except 
uke are absent on mis- 


7s a Wns £4 Olas bio & Os GF 


173 


9 Srovdacov erSeiv mpds pe TAY EWS. 


sions. Beware of Alexan- 10 Anuds yap we eyKaTéNTreEV, ayaTicas TOV 


der. At my defence 


y a na \ 
my friends deserted me, YOY ai@va, Kab erropedSn eis Oecoadovixny, 


but the Lord stood by me. 


as Huther well observes, uses the d:xala 
«plots @cod not only as aground of warn- 
ing, but even of consolation ; see 2 Thess. 
A 0s Tots HyamwnKdowy 
«. 7. A.] ‘who have loved (and do love) 
His appearing,’ scil. His second émipdveta : 
not his first coming in the flesh (ch. i. 
10), nor the first and second (Beng.), 
but, as the context requires, only the 
latter. The perfect is not here ‘in the 
sense of a present,’ Huther; it is only 
thus far present that it points to the per- 
sistence of the feeling ; it was a love év 
a&pdapcia (Eph. vi. 24, and see notes), 
that beginning in the past was alike pres- 
ent and enduring ; comp. Green, Gramm. 
p. 319. There is thus no need for giv- 
ing dyamay the sense of ‘longing for’ 
(Beza, Wiesing.) ; it is simply ‘diligere,’ 
and implies a combined feeling of rever- 
ence and love, ‘ inest notio admirandi et 
colendi,’ Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 553 see 
also Trench, Synon.§ 12. In a practi- 
cal point of view, the remark of Calvin 
is gravely suggestive; ‘e fidelium nu- 
mero excludit, quibus formidabilis est 
Christi adventus: thus then we may 
truly say with Leo, ‘habemus hic lapi- 
dem Lydium, quo examinemus corda 
nostra.’ 

9. cmotvdacor] ‘earnestly endeavor,’ 


“do thy best,’ Vio [curs sit] Syr- 


iac ; compare ver. 21, Tit. iii. 12. There 
is scarcely a pleonasm in the expression 
orovdacov — Taxéws (Winer, Gr. § 65. 1, 
p- 531), as omovda¢e involves more the 
idea of earnest and diligent endeavor than 
that of mere haste (omeddew). though the 
latter meaning is also sometimes found, 
e.g. Aristoph. Thesm. 572, éomovdaxvia 
mpootpéxet, al.: thus then, as a general 
rule, ‘ omedSeww est _festinare (de tempore), 


omovdd(ew properare, t.e. festinanter et 
sedulo aliquid facere,’ Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 
190. According to Pott, Etym. Forsch, 
Vol. 1. p. 239, the fundamental idea of 
both verbs is ‘premere,’ ‘pressare.’ On the 
strengthened vowel (guna), see Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 223. Tax €ws| More fully 
explained in ver. 21, mpd xeyuavos. It is 
singular that so intelligent a commenta- 
tor as De W. should represent this invi- 
tation as the main object of the letter 
(Hinleit. § 3); surely the solemn and 
prophetic warnings of the previous chap- 
ters cannot be merely ‘ obiter dicta.’ 

10. Anpas] Mentioned with St. Luke 
(Col. iv. 14) as sending salutations to the 
Colossians, and with the same evangel- 
ist and others, as a ouvepyds (Philemon 
24). Mournful and unmanly as the con- 
duct of Demas is here described to be, 
there seems no just reason for ascribing 
to him utter apostasy (Epiph. Her. 41. 
6); he left the apostle in his trials and 
sufferings (éyxatéAurev) because he loved 
safety and ease and the fleeting pleasures 
of this world (tby viv aiéva), and had 
not the Christian fortitude to share the 
dangers, or the Christian love to minis- 
ter to the sufferings, of the nearly deso- 
late apostle; ris avécews epacdels, Tod 
&xivdvvov kal TOU aoadods, waAAOV efAeTO 
otkot Tpupav 7) meT euovd Tadraitwpetovat 
kal cvvdiadépery wor Tos mapdyras Kwdd- 
vous, Chrysostom ; sce Mosheim, de Reb. 
Christ. § 60, p. 174, and compare Taylor, 
Duct. Dub 1. 2. 5. 19, who, however, 
makes the singular mistake of asserting 
(from Col. and Philem.) that Demas 
returned to his duty. The name is prob- 
ably a shortened form of Jemeéetrius ; 
compare Winer, RWB. s. v. Vol. 1. p, 
264. éyxatéAtmer] ‘ for- 
sook,’ ‘ dereliquit,’ Vulg., Clarom. The 


_ 


174 


2-TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. IV. 10, 31. 


Kpyoxns eis Tanratiav, Tiros cis Aadpatiav. ™ Aoveis éotw 


fuovos pet” epmod. 


11. &ye] So CDEFGKL; Chrys., al. 
ther, and apparently Wiesing.). 


Médpkov avaraBov dye peta ceavtod 


” 
E€OTLW 


...( Griesb., Scholz, Lachm. (ed. maj.), Hu- 
The aor. &yaye is adopted by Tisch. (ed. 1, 2, 7) 


on the authority of A; 31. 38. 71. al.; Theodoret, Dam....(Zachm. (ed. stereot.), 


Alf.). 


It would seem, however, that this is insufficient authority for the change, 


and that Lachm. was right in the alteration adopted in his larger edition. 


compound form seems here to imply 
leaving behind in his troubles and dan- 
gers ; compare ver. 16, 2 Cor. iv. 9, and 
especially Plato. Symp.p. 179 a, éyxara- 
Aurety 2) wh BonSioa KwdvuvevoyvTt. This 
meaning, however, must not always be 
pressed, as there are several instances, 
especially in later Greek, in which éyxa- 
Tad. seems scarcely different from ka- 
7aA.; see Ellendt on Arrian, Alex. 1. 20. 
6, p. 100. Thereading éykarda e17ey is 
adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) with strong 
uncial authority. The itacism (e for 1, 
ete.), however, that is found even in the 
very best MSS., renders it doubtful 
whether the same tense is not intended, 
whichever reading be adopted. 

ayarhaas| ‘having loved,’ sc. ‘ because 
he loved:’ apparently rather a causal 
(comp. Donalds. Gr. § 616) than a tem- 
poral (Alford, al.) use of the participle ; 
his love of the world was the cause of 
his leaving. There is an apparent con- 
trast between this clause and jyarnkdow 
Thy émip., ver. 8; ‘luctuosum antithe- 
ton,’ Beng. 
ai@val] ‘the present world,’ ‘ the present 
(evil) course of things.’ On the mean- 
ing of aidy, see notes on Eph. ii. 2. Be- 
side the regular temporal meaning [Syr. 


Tov viv 


Oo 
yoSS] which is always more or less 


apparent in the word. an ethical meaning 
(as here) may often be traced ; see Reuss, 
Theol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 228. 

@ceacadrovixny| Perhaps his home; 
eleto olxot tpvpav, Chrysost. For an 
account of this wealthy city, see notes on 
1 Thess. i. 1. Kphorns] 


Of Crescens nothing is known; the ac- 
counts of his having been a preacher in 
Galatia (Const. Apost. vir. 46, Vol. I. p. 
385, ed. Cot.), or in Gaul (Epiph.), and 
having founded the church of Vienne 
are mere legendary glosses on this pas- 
sage. The reading TaaAlay [C; al. (5); 
Amit.*, /Eth.-Rom.; Euseb., Theod.- 
Mops., Epiphan., Hier.] is probably due 
to these current traditions. 
Aaduattayv] A part of Ilyria on the 
eastern coast of the Adriatic, lying south- 
east of Liburnia, and mainly bounded by 
the Bebii Montes on the north and the 
river Drinus to the east: the principal 
cities were Salona (on the coast), and 
Narona inland; comp. Plin. Hist. Nat. 
111. 26, Cellarius, Notit. Lib. 11. 8, Vol. 
I. p. 614, and Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. § 
121, Vol. 111. p. 838. 

11. Aovxeas| Comp. Col. iv. 14, Phi- 
lem. 24; the evangelist accompanied St. 
Paul on his second missionary journey, 
Acts xvi. 10; again goes with him to 
Asia (Acts xx. 6), and Jerusalem (Acts 
xxi. 15), and is with him during his cap- 
tivity at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), and 
his first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 
16). Of the later history of St. Luke 
nothing certain is known; according to 
Epiphanius (Her. tr. 11), he is said to 
have preached principally in Gaul; see 
Winer, RWB. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 35, and 
compare the modern continuation of the 
Acta Sanct. (Octr. 18), Vol. v111. p. 295 
sq. The name is probably a contraction 
of Aoveavds, and is said to indicate that 
he was either a slave or a ‘ libertus ;’ see 
Lebeck’s article on substantives in -as, 


Cuar. IV. 11, 12. 


SP i MOT Wy . 


175 


yap jou evypnotos eis Svaxoviav. “ Tbyixov S& améoteida eis 


in Wolf, Analecta Lit. Vol. 11. p. 47 sq. 
Mdpkov] The evangelist St. Mark was 
converted apparently by St. Peter (1 
Pet. y. 13) ; he, however, accompanied 
St. Paul and his aveyudbs St. Barnabas on 
their first missionary journey (Acts xii. 
25), but departed from them (Acts xv. 
38) and was the cause of the dissension 
between the apostle and St. Barnabas 
(ver. 39). He was again with St. Paul 
(Col. iv. 10), and, lastly, is here invited 
to return to him, having been a short 
time previously (if we adopt as the prob- 
able date of 1 Pet. a. p. 65—67) with St. 
Peter (1 Pet.v.13). Of his after history 
nothing certain is known; the most cur- 
rent tradition assigns his latest labors to 
Egypt and Alexandria, Epiph. Her.11. ; 
comp. Acta Sanct. (April 25) Vol. 111. 
p. 351. avaraBary] ‘hav- 
ing taken (to thee) ;’ in the present use of 
this compound the primary local force of 
ava (more clearly seen Eph. vi. 13, 16) 
is somewhat obscured (comp. avadi:ddvar), 
though still not to be wholly passed over ; 
Timothy was to take to himself as a com- 
panion the evangelist; see Winer, de 
Verb. Comp. Fasc. 111. p. 1, who very 
clearly defines the two uses of this prep- 
osition in composition, (a) the usual 
physical sense ; () the derivative sense, 
involving the ideas of return or repetition. 
etxpnoros| ‘serviceable, ch. ii. 21; 
possibly as Grot. suggests, on account 
of his knowledge of Latin ; though, more 
probably in reference to assistance in 
preaching the Gospel; eis thy Siaxoviay 
Tov evayyeAlov’ Kal yap ev Secpois dy ovk 
fAnyn [MWadAos| xnpitrwy, Chrysostom. 
The translation of the Auth. Vers. ‘ for 
the ministry’ (objected to by Conyb.), 
may thus be defended; the omission of 
the article (after the prep.) of course 
causing no difficulty; see Winer, Gr. § 
19. 2. b,p.114. On the whole, however, 
it is perhaps more exact to retain a neu- 


> 


tral translation ‘ for ministering,’ which, 
while it does not exclude other services, 
may still leave the idea of the edayyea- 
ix) Siaxovia fairly prominent. 

12. Tuxtxov be] ‘but Tychicus;’ 
the 5 appears to refer to a suppressed 
thought; not, however, to one suggested 
by the 1st member of ver. 11 (Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 428), but, as the more: imme- 
diate context seems to require, by the 
concluding portion, et¥xpyoros k. 7. A.3 
‘bring Mark, I need one who is etyp.; 
I had one in Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21), but 
he is gone.’ On the accent see Winer, 
Gr. § 6, p. 49. The chronology 
is here not without difficulty. Tychicus, 
who was with the apostle on his third 
missionary journey, and went before him 
to Troas (Acts xx. 5), is mentioned 
(Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7) as sent by St. 
Paul into Asia to comfort the hearts of 
his converts. Now, as the Epistle to the 
Eph. and Coloss. cannot with any show 
of reason be assumed as contempora- 
neous with the present Epistle, we must 
assume that this was a second mission to 
Ephesus, the object of which however is 
unknown. ‘The first mission took place 
at the apostle’s first captivity at Rome ; 
this, it would seem, takes place at a sec- 
ond and final captivity. We thus take 
for granted that the apostle was twice in 
prison at Rome. Without entering into 
a discussion which would overstep the 
limits of this commentary, it may be 
enough to remark that though denied by 
Wieseler (Chronol. p. 472 sq.), and but 
doubtfully noticed by Winer, RWS. 
Vol. 11. p. 220 (ed. 3), the ancient opin- 
ion of a second imprisonment (Euseb. 
Hist. 11. 22) is in such perfect harmony 
with the notices in these Epistles, and 
has, to say the least, such very plausible 
external arguments in its favor, that it 
does seem to remain far the most satis- 
factory of all the hypotheses that have as 


176 


2 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap, TY, 13, 


"Edecov. 33 Tov, pedovyv bv amédurov ev Tpwdds Tapa Kapr, 


yet been advanced ; see especially Nean- 
der, Planting, ch. x. Vol. 1, p. 331 sq. 
(Bohn), Wiesinger, Hinleit. § 3, p. 576. 
eis “Egecov| These words have been 
urged by Theodoret and De Wette as 
affording a hint that Timothy was not 
then at Ephesus; compare Tit. iii. 12, 
mpos oé. This is perhaps doubtful ; com- 
pare Wieseler, Chronol. p. 462. This 
latter writer taking améoreiAa as an epis- 
tolary aor. conceives that Tychicus was 
the bearer of this letter (see Chronol. p. 
428), this, again, is very doubtful, and 
in many respects a very unsatisfactory 
hypothesis. Does, however, the language 
wholly forbid the conjecture that Tychi- 
cus was the bearer of the first epistle? It 
has been frequently remarked in these 
notes that the first epistle seems to have 
been written at no great distance of time 
from the second. 

13. perAdyny] ‘cloak,’ Auth. Ver., 
*penulam,’ Vulg., ‘hakul,’ Goth.,—a 
long, thick, and apparently sleeveless 
cloak, with only an opening for the head, 
Smith, Dict. Antig.s. v.; peadvny évtai- 
Sa 7d iudriov Aéyer’ Tues 5€ [Syriac, al.] 
pact 7 yAwoodkouov, Wa To BiBAla 
éxe:ro, Chrys. There seems no reason 
to depart from the former and usual 


sense ; the second interpretation noticed- 


by Chrysostom, ‘case for writings,’ 


(lod Aa Syr., Wieseler, Chronol. 


p- 423), was probably only an interpr. 
suggested by the connection, and by the 
thought that the apostle would not have 
been likely to mention an article so com- 
paratively unimportant as a cloak, espe- 
cially when near his death. One reason, 
at any rate, seems suggested by ver. 21, 
mpd xemuavos. The word is found in 
several other passages, e g. Poll. Ono- 
mast. vi1. 65, Athen. Deipn. 111. p. 97, 
Arrian, Epict. 1v. 8; see also Suicer, 
Thesaur. s.v. Vol, 11. p. 1422, who, how- 


ever, with but little probability seems to 
advocate two forms, paiwdAns and gedd- 
vns (comp. Hesych.) deriving apparently 
the former from galyw and the second 
from @eAAds, ‘pellis.? There is indeed 
an almost hopeless confusion among the 
Greek lexicographers on this word or 
words, some making gaiAdvns (Suid.), 
aliter peAdvns (tym. M.), to be the yAws- 
odxouov, and gawddns (Suid.), or yet 
again, gevdAns (Suid.), to be the cloak. 
On the whole, it seems probable that the 
true form is goivdAns, and that it is de- 
rived from the Latin, ‘pxnula’ (Rost u. 
Palm, Lez. 8. v.), not vice versa, as in 
Voss, Etymol.s. v. Here Tisch. rightly 
adopts the orthography best supported 
by MS. authority. For further informa- 
tion, see the dissertation ‘ de Pallio Pau- 
li’ in Crit. Sacr. Thess. Vol. 11. p. 707, 
the special treatise on the ‘pznula’ by 
Bartholinus in Grevius, Antig. Rom. 
Vol. vi. p. 1167 sq., and the numerous 
archeological notices and references in 
Wolf, Cur. Phil. in loc. 

kal t& BiBaAta] Tl dé abtg ray Bip- 
Alwy eer méAAovTt Garodnucivy mpds Toy 
Ocoyv; kal pddiota %e1, bore abta Tors 
Toros tapadéosat, Kat av7l THs avTov 
didacKkaArlas éxew avtd, Chrysost.: more 
probably, perhaps, books generally, Bull, 
Serm. Xv. p. 180 (Oxf. 1844). It is, 
however, useless to guess at either the 
contents of the Bi8Ata, or the reasons for 
the request. edAtora 
Tas meuBp.] ‘especially the parchments ;’ 
the former were probably written on pap- 
yrus, the latter on parchment, ‘ membra- 
na’ (membrum, membrana cutis) ; com- 
pare Hug, Hinl. Vol. 1.§ 11. See also 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v., and Smith, Dict. 
Antig. s. vy. Itis not wholly improbable, : 
as the udAiora seems to indicate, that 
the parchments were writings, whether 
‘adversaria’ or otherwise, of the apostle 
himself; compare Bull, Serm. xv. p. 183 


¢ 


‘Cuap. IV. 14, 15. 


2 TIMOTHY. 


177 


° J 
Epxopevos gépe, kal Ta BiBria, wadvoTa TAs pepBpdvas. “Ar 
éEavbpos 6 yadkeds TOXAG pou KaKa évedeiEaTo: amoden aiTe 6 


Kupwos cata ta épya avrod. 


sq.,—2 sermon well worthy of perusal. 
Of Carpus nothing is known, nor of the 
journey to Troas ; it certainly could not 
have been that mentioned Acts xx. 6, a 
visit more than six years anterior. 

14. *AAéE~avSpos] See notes on 1 
Tim. i. 20: whether this evil man was 
then at Ephesus or not cannot be deter- 
mined; the former supposition is per- 
haps most probable ; see Wieseler, Chro- 
nol. p. 463. TOAAG K.T.A.] 
* showed me much ill treatment ;’ ‘ multa 
mihi mala ostendit,’ Claroman., Vulg. 
[mala mihi] ; Saupe we diaddpws, Chrys. 
The translation ‘ hath (?) shown much ill 
feeling’ (Peile), is unnecessarily restrict- 
ed, and that of Conyb., ‘ charged me with 
much eyil’ (forensic use of the active), 
in a high degree improbable. The ‘ in- 
tensive’ middle (see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 
52. 8.5, and notes on Eph. ii. 7) évoelé- 
acdat, with a dative persone and acc. rei, 
is frequently used both in a good (e. g. 
[Demosthen.| Halonn. p. 87) and a bad 
sense (Gen. 1. 15, 17), and seems clearly 
to point to the exhibition of outward acts 
of injury and wrong to the apostle. 
&mrod@n| ‘may the Lord reward him 
according to his works ;’ mpoppnois éotw, 
ovx apd, Theodoret. Even this limita: 
tion is not necessary: St. Paul might 
properly wish that one who had so with- 
stood the cause of the Gospel (juerépus 
Aédyois, see below, ver. 15), and who had 
as yet shown no symptom of repent- 
ance (Sv kal ov x. T. A.), might be reward- 
ed according to his works. On the late 
and incorrect form dzrod@n for dzrodoln, 
compare Lobeck, Phryn. p. 345, Sturz, 
de Dial. Maced. p. 52. The reading is 
not perfectly certain ; the future amodéce 
is supported by very strong external au- 
thority, ACD!E'FG; 15 mss.; Boern., 
Vulg., al. ( Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Alf.); 


15 


a ‘\ \ 
ov Kal av duddooov, Niav yap 


still as dogmaticel reasons might so very 
naturally suggest the change of the opt. 
into the fut., while no plausible reason 
can be alleged for the converse, —as 
again, there are no paradiplomatic argu- 
ments {such as arise from erroneous 
transcription] in favor of the change to 
the fut., while there are some for the 
change to the opt. (the reading, -dwoe 
may have been a correction of -dwe:, com- 
pare Mill, Prolegomena, p. 49), we seem 
justified in retaining aod, with D®E 
KL; great majority of mss.; Clarom., 
Sangerm., Amit., al. Tischendorf (ed. 
2) has thus apparently with judgment 
reversed the reading of his first ed.: so 
De. W. and Wiesing. 

15. by kal od «.7.A.] ‘ Of whom do 
thou also beware.’ This advice seems to 
confirm the supposition that Alexander 
was then at Ephesus (see ver. 14), unless 
indeed we also adopt the not very proba- 
ble opinion of Theod., noticed in notes 
on ver. 12, that Timothy was not now at 
Ephesus. Alav yap K.7.A.] 
‘for he greatly withstandeth our words ;? 
reason why Timothy should beware of 
Alexander. If the jérepo: Adyo allude 
to the defence which St. Paul made, and 
which Alexander opposed (see Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 464), Alexander must be 
conceived (if originally from Ephesus) 
to have gone to Rome and returned again. 
It must be observed, however, that the 
studied connection of this clause with dv 
kal ob «. T. A. rather than with woAAd jor 
kK. T.A., secms rather to militate against 
this supposition, and to suggest a more 
general reference; tots tod evayyeAlov 
Adyos, The reading ayréarn (Lachm., 
Alf, al.) is fairly supported [ACD'(FG 
avséorn) ; 17], but in collective external 
evidence apparently inferior to that in 
the text (Rec., Tisch., al.) 


23 


178 


PJ la fn e. , , 
avYéoTnKev Tots NwETEPOLS AoYoLs. 


2TIMOTH ¥. 


Cuar. IV. 16, 17. 


6 Ev th mpory 


ov amroAoyla ovoeis “ol TUmTrapEryeveTO, GANA TraVTES ME eyKAaTE- 
fou a ya S p Tr apery ’ PoOey 


Aurrov' pu) avTois AoytoNetn’ 


16. évy TH wpaTyH k.T.A.] ‘at my 
first defence ;’ compare Phil. i. 7, but 
observe that there 77 amoA., on account 
of the article, must be connected with 
Tov evayyeAlov, and that the circumstan- 
ces alluded to are in all probability whol- 
ly different. Timothy was then appar- 
ently with him (Phil. i. 1); now he is 
informing him of something new, and 
which happened at his last imprison- 
ment, see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
334 (Bohn). This amoA. rpdérn was in 
all probability the ‘actio prima,’ after 
which, as a ‘non liquet’ (see Smith, 
Dict. Antig. s. v. ‘ Judex’) had been re- 
turned, an ‘ampliatio’ (comp. aveBdaAerto, 
Acts xxiv. 22) had succeeded, during 
which the apostle is now writing; see 
especially Wieseler, Chronol. p. 409 sq., 
and compare Rein. Rim. Privatrecht, v. 
2.6, p. 450. Conyb. and Howson (St. 
Paul, Vol. 11. p. 580, ed. 2) deny the 
continuance under the emperors of this 
custom of ‘ampliatio’ on the authority 
of Geib, Rim. Crim.-Proc. p. 377 : this, 
however, does not appear fully made 
out. ouuTapeyéveTo| 
‘stood forward with me,’ ‘ adfuit,’ Vulg., 
scil. as a ‘patronus’ to plead in my de- 
fence, or more probably as an ‘ advoca- 
tus’ to support by his counsel; compare 
[Demosth.] Neer, p. 1369, cupmapaye- 
vouevos avT@ doxmaCouervw, and, as re- 
gards the practice of Christians support- 
ing and comforting their brethren in 
prison, Lucian, de Morte Peregr. § 13. 
Examples of the similarly forensic ex- 
pressions tapayliyverdal Tit, mapeival Tiv1, 
are cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 319. 
On the respective offices and duties of 
“advocatus’ and ‘patronus,’ see Rein, 
Rém. Privatrecht, v. 1. 3, p. 425. 
éyratéAtroyv| On the meaning of 
chis compound, see notes on verse 10. 


17 


6 5€ Kipios pot trapéotn nab 


The reason of the desertion was obyious- 
ly fear; ov kaxonSelas Fv GAAG deAlas 7 
broxeépnots, Theod. The knowledge of 
this suggests the clause, uw) abtots Aoyic- 
Sem, in which the apostle’s pardon is 
blended with his charitable prayer; ‘may 
God forgive them, even asI do.’ The 
reading of ACD?D°EFGL appears sim- 
ply due to itacism ; so again, améAeuror, 
with CL, al., in ver. 20: see Tisch. Pro- 
legom. p. Xxxvii (ed. 7). 

17. 6 8€ Kvptos| In marked con- 
trast to ver. 16; ‘man, even my friends, 
deserted me,—but my Lord stood by 
me.’ éveduvduwoer| 
‘gave me inward strength,’ 7. e. rappnolav 
exaploato, ovK adjKe Katameceiv, Chrys- 
ostom; see notes on 1 Tim. i.12. The 
purpose of the évdvyduwors then follows. 
As ever, the apostle loses all thought and 
feeling of self, and sees only in the gra- 
cious aid ministered to him a higher and 
a greater purpose: so Chrys., and after 
him Theophyl. and GQicum. 
TAnpopopnan] ‘might be fully per- 
formed, fulfilled,’ ‘ adimpleatur, Clarom., 
Syriac,— not ‘might be fully known,’ 
Auth. Ver., ‘ certioraretur,’ Beza. There 
seems no reason to depart here from the 
meaning assigned to wAnpod. in verse 5 
(see notes); the knpuvyya (observe not 
evoryyéAtov) was indeed fully performed, 
when in the capital of the world, at the 
highest earthly tribunal, possibly in the 
Roman forum (Dio Cass. Lv1l. 7, Lx. 4, 
— after Claudius however, doubtful), and 
certainly before a Roman multitude, 
Paul the prisoner of the Lord spake for 
himself, and for the Gospel ; see Wiesel.,” 
Chronol. ». 476, who has illustrated and 
defended this application with much abil- 
ity. kal a@kovcwotv 
k. T. A.] ‘and all the Gentiles might hear :’ 
further amplification of the preceding 


Crap. IV. 17, 18. 


2 TIMOTHY. 


179 


> , , ivf 33 A \ , A Ne: 7 
éveduvdpacey pe, wa dv éwod To Kyipvyya TAnpopopys) Kal akov- 

f La, SY eee b id , 18: 2<e2 
coow TavTa Ta ESV. Kal EppiaSnv éK oTOWaTos NéovTOsS. *~ pu- 


words ; not in reference to any preach- 
ings after his first captivity (comp. The- 
odoret, De W.), but simply in connection 
with his public aroAoyia in this his sec- 
ond captivity. The position of iva, after 
mapéoTn kat éved. rather than after éppic- 
Snv, seems certainly to confirm this: see 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 476. The reading 
of Rec. axoton (with KL; al.; Chrys., 
Theod.), is only a grammatical correc- 
tion. kal éppradny| 
‘and I was rescued ;’ second and further 
act of the Lord towards his servant; He 
inspired him with strength, and further, 
rescued him. The aor. is purely passive ; 
several of these ‘ deponentia media,’ e. g. 
Sedouat, idowat, xapiCoua: x. 7. A. have 
besides an aor. med., an aor. in the pass. 
form which (unlike 7BovafSyny, ndvv}Snv 
k. 7. A.) is completely passive in sense; 
compare éseddyv, Matth. vi. 1, Mark 
Xvi. 11, iaSqv, Matth. viii. 13, éyapicSny, 
1 Cor. ii. 12, Phil. i. 29, and see further 
examples in Winer, Gr. § 38. 7. p. 231. 

éx oTduatos A€ovTos is very differ- 
ently explained. The least probable in- 
terpretation seems a reference to the li- 
ons of the amphitheatre (Mosheim, and 
even Neand. Plant. Vol. 1. p. 345, note), 
the most probable, perhaps, that of the 
later expositors (De Wette, Huth., al.), 
that it is a figurative expression for the 
greatest danger, ‘ generaliter periculum,’ 
Caly., compare 1 Cor. xv. 32, éSypiomd- 
xnoa (see Meyer in loc.), Ignat. Rom. 5, 
amd Supias wéexpr ‘Péuns Snpiouaxa, where 
the somewhat parallel allusions are simi- 
larly figurative. The most current in- 
terpretation is that of the Greek commen- 
tators, who refer the expression to Nero: 
Agovra yap Tov Népwyvd pyar did Td SInpr- 
&des, Chrysostom, al.; but it is doubtful 
whether he was then at Rome; see Pear- 
son, Ann. Paul. Vol. 1. p. 895 (ed. Chur- 
ton), who consequently transfers it to 


Helius Czsareanus. Wieseler finds in 
Aéwy the principal accuser (Chronol. p. 
476); alii alia. Leo, with very good 
sense, retracts in his preface, p. xxxviii, 
his reference of Aé€wy to Nero, observing 
the omission of the article (which might 
have been expected, as in Joseph. Antiq. 
XVIII. 6. 10, Té&Svnkev 6 A€wy) This 
omission cannot indeed be pressed, as it 
might be due to correlation (Middleton, 
Art. 111. 3.7); it may be said, however, 
that it is highly probable that if Nero, or 
a definite person (human or spiritual, e. g. 
Satan, compare Alford in loc.), had been 
here meant, it would have been inserted, 
as in the examples in Winer, Gr. § 18. 
2.b, p. 114. sq. The most pertinent re- 
mark is that of Huth., that it is to the 
otdua A€ovros (LOwenrachen), not to the 
Aéwy, that the attention is principally 
directed. 

18. fpuoerar «.7.A.] ‘The Lord 
shall rescue me from every evil work ;’ 
continuation of the foregoing declaration, 
in a somewhat changed application: kal, 
which would make the connection more 
close, is rightly omitted by Lachm. and 
Tisch., with ACD!; 381, al.; Clarom., 
Sangerm., Aug., Vulg., Copt., Arm., al. 
The change of prep. (curiously enough 
not noticed by apparently any commen- 
tator) points more generally to the re- 
moval from (see Winer, Gr. § 47, p. 331 
compared with p. 327) all the evil efforts 
that were directed against the apostle and 
the evil influences around him, —not 
merely all that threatened him person- 
ally, but all that, in his person, thwarted 
the Gospel. Thus zovnpds retains its 
proper sense of ‘active wickedness * (mapa 
Tod mévos ywoduevos, Suidas ; compare 
Trench, Synon. § 11), and épyor its more 
usual sense. Most modern commenta- 
tors (except Wiesing.), following Chrys., 
al., either explain waytbs épy. mov. aS Tavs 


180 


DEM OL Y> 


Cuar. IV. 18-20, 


, et t 6 8 \ 7 a) Sa \ / > 
DETAL [LE O Kipwos aTO TAVTOS Epyou TOVnpov Kat DWOEL Els THY 


ty 2 le) %. bl / 
Bacihevay avtod Thy émoupaviov 


er ¢ / 
al@vaVv, anv" 
Salutations and personal 


notices. 


’"Ovnavpopov oixov. 


Ts GuapTiuaros, in reference to St. Paul, 
—a change from the objective in ver. 17 
to the subjective which is not very satis- 
factory, — or take épyov as equivalent to 
mpayna, xXpiua, 2 meaning which though 
defensible (see examples in Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s.v.), is not necessary. There is 
no declaration that the apostle shall be 
rescued out of his dangers, which would 
be inconsistent with ver. 6; it is only 
said in effect in ver. 7, 8, that he shall be 
removed from the sphere of evil in every 
form: ‘decollabitur? liberabitur, libe- 
rante Domino,’ Beng. The transition 
to the next clause, from the amd to the 
eis, is thus very easy and natural. 

odoet cis] ‘shall save me into:’ a 
pregnans constructio, ‘shall save and 
place me in,’ compare chap. ii. 26, and 
see further examples in Winer, Gr. § 66. 
2, p. 547. There is thus no reason for 
modifying od¢ew (scil. &er we eis K.T.A., 
Coray ; compare Eurip. Jph. 7. 1069), 
still less for referring it merely to preser- 
vation from earthly troubles (Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 251) 
followed as it is by the explicit ryv Ba- 
ciAclay Thy émovpdviov. In these last 
words it has been urged by De Wette 
and others that we have a thought foreign 
to St. Paul. Surely this is an ill-consid- 
ered statement: though the mere expres- 
sion % BaoiA. 7 émovp. may not occur 
again in the N. Test., still the idea of a 
present sovereignty and kingdom of 
Christ in heaven is conveyed in some 
passages (Eph. i. 20, Col. iii. 1), and ex- 
pressed in others (1 Cor. xv. 25, BaotAev- 
ew) too plainly to give any cause for 
difficulty in the present case; compare 
Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. and vi. Vol. 1. 


Pe U ? \ IA n 
@ 1 Sofa eis Tovs aidvas TOV 


%"Aatracat IIpicxay kat’ Axvdrav Kal Tov 
20 "Epactos éuewev €v KopivS@, Tpodipov 


p. 124, 328 (ed. Burt.). Had this expres- 
sion appeared in any other than one of 
the Pastoral Epp., it would have passed 
unchallenged. On the term érovpdmos, 
compare notes on Eph. i. 3. 
» ) Sdba x. 7.A.] Observe especially 
this doxology to Christ ; idob dotoAoyta 
70d Tiod ws Kal Tod Tatpds, obTos yap 6 
Kupios, Theophylact. Waterland might 
have added this, Def. of Queries, xv11. 
Vol. 1. p 423. On the expression eis 
Tos aiavas Tov aidvwy, see notes on Gal. 
1. 5. 

19. Iplokav kal AnbaAar] Prisca 


_ or Priscilla (Like Livia or Livilla, Drusa 


or Drusilla, Wetstein on Rom. xvi. 8) 
was the wife of Aquila of Pontus. They 
became first known to the apostle in Co- 
rinth (Acts xviii. 2), whither they had 
come from Rome on account of the edict 
of Claudius; the apostle abode with 
them as being éudrexvor, and took them 
with him to Syria (ver. 18). They were 
with him at Ephesus (surely not Co- 
rinth! Huther) when he wrote 1 Cor. 
(see ch. xvi. 19), and are again noticed as’ 
being at Rome (Rom. xvi. 3) where they 
had probably gone temporarily, perhaps 
for purposes of trade : of their after history 
nothing is known, see Winer, RWB. 
s. v. ‘ Aquila,’ Vol. 1. p. 73, and Herzog, 
Real-Encycl. Vol. 1. p. 456, who, how- 
ever, ascribes their migrations to the dif- 
ficulties and trials encountered in preach- 
ing the Gospel. tov ’Orye. 
oixov] See notes on ch. i. 16. One- 
siphorus is said to have been bishop of 
Corone in Messenia; Fabricius, Luz. 
Evang. p. 117 (cited by Winer). This, 
however, must be considered highiy 
doubtful, 


Cap. IV. 20. 22. 


2 TIMOTHY. 


181 


de drréhutrov é€v Midijtw aoSevoivta. 2% Srrovdacov mpd yewpo- 


vos éASetv. 


"Aoraterai ce EvBounos, at ITovdns, cat 


Alvos, kal Knavéia, cai oi adeAgot raves. 


20.*Epaotos| A Christian of this 
name is mentioned as oixovduos (arcarius) 
of Corinth, Rom. xvi. 23. Mention is 
again made of an Erastus as having been 
sent from Ephesus to Macedonia with 
Tim., Acts xix. 22. Whether these pas- 
sages relate to the same person cannot 
possibly be determined; but it may be 
said, in spite of the positive assertion of 
Wieseler (Chronol.,p. 471) to the contra- 
ry, that the identity of the Erastus of Co- 
rinth and Erastus the missionary seems 
very doubtful. It is scarcely likely that 
the oixovduos of Corinth would be able to 
act as a diaxovay (Acts /. c.); see Meyer, 
Rom. 1. c., and Winer, RWB. s. v. Vol. 
I. p. 335; so also Neand. Planting, Vol. 
1. p. 834 (Bohn). It is perhaps more 
probable, from the expression €uewev év 
KopivSw, that the present Erastus was 
identical with Erastus of Corinth ; com- 
pare Huther. All however is conjecture. 

Tpdgpipor| ‘ Trophimus;’ a Gentile 
Christian of Ephesus, who accompanied 
St. Paul (on his third missionary jour- 
ney) from Troas (Acts xx. 4) to Mile- 
tus, Syria, and ultimately, Jerusalem, 
where his presence was the cause of an 
uproar (Acts xxi. 29). Legendary his- 
tory says that he was beheaded under 
Nero, Menolog. Grec. Vol. 111. p. 57 
(Winer). améArttov| ‘1 
left ;’ certainly not plural, ‘they left,’ 
scil. ‘his comrades,’ an artificial inter- 
pretation (see Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Tro- 
phimus’ Vol. 11. p. 634) which would 
never have been thought of, if the doubt- 
ful hypothesis of a single imprisonment 
of St. Paul at Rome had not seemed to 
require it. The supposition of Wieseler 
(Chronol. p. 467) that he accompanied 
St. Paul on his way to Rome (Acts 
xxvii.), but falling sick returned to Mi- 
letus in the Adramyttian ship from which 


St. Paul parted at Myra (Acts xxvii. 6), 
may be ingenious, but seems in a high 
degree improbable, and is well answered 
by Wiesinger in his notes on this verse, 
p- 684 sq. Still more hopeless is the at- 
tempt to change the reading, with the 
Arab. Vers., to MeAfrn, or to refer it to 
Miletus on the North coast of Crete, near 
which St. Paul never went. If we sup- 
pose this some journey later than the pe- 
riod recorded in the Acts (see notes on 1 
Tim, i. 3), and adopt the theory of a sec- 
ond imprisonment, all difficulty ceases. 

21. rpd xetu@vos| ‘before winter:’ 
not necessarily ‘ before the storms of win- 
ter,’ Wieseler, Chronol. p. 472. The ex- 
pression seems only an amplification of 
ver. 9; mpd Xetmavos, iva wh KaTacxXEdTs 
(Chrysostom) whether by dangers on the 
sea (Coray), or difficulties of travelling 
on the land. In this repeated desire of 
St. Paul to see his son in the faith, and 
the mention of a possible cause which 
might detain him, we see tokens of the 
apostle’s prescience of his approaching 
death ; Sia mdvrwy pnvder Thy TeAevTHy, 
Theodoret. E#BovaAos 
x. T. A.] Of Eubulus, Pudens, and Clau 
dia, nothing certain is known; they were 
not companions of the apostle (verse 
11), but only members of the Church at 
Rome. The identity of the two latter 
with the Pudens and Claudia of Martial 
(Epigr. Iv. 13, XI. 34) seems very doubt- 
ful; see, however, Conyb. and Howson, 
St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 595 (ed. 2), Alford, 
Prolegom. Vol. 111. p. 104. Linus is in 
all probability the first bishop of Rome 
of that name; see Ireneus, Her. 111. 3, 
Euseb, Hist. 111. 2. 

22. weTa ToD wvedyu.| ‘with thy 
spirit ;’ so Gal. vi. 18, Philem. 25. The 
apostle names the ‘ spirit’ as the ‘ potior 
pars’ in our nature, see notes on Gal. 1. c. 


182 


Benediction. 


BaTos cov. 7 yapis wey tpav. 


27 MOTH Y . 


Cuapr. IV. 22. 


*™“O Kuptos Inaods Xpuotos peta Tod Tvev- 


22. Kupios "Inootvs Xpiords] So Rec., Griesb., Scholz, with CDEKL; al.; Syr., 


Vulg., al. 


Lachmann reads 6 Kup. Incods with A; 31.114; Tisch. reads only Ku- 


pios with FG; 17. al.; Boern., Ath. Though an interpolation is not improbable, 
yet the uncial authority for the omission seems very weak ; F and G are little more 


than equivalent to one authority. 


There is no allusion to the Holy Spirit 
(Chrys. al.), nor to mvevpatixh xapis 
(Cicumen.) ; the mvedua is the human 
mvedua (not merely the ux, Coray), 
the third and highest part in man; com- 
pare Olshausen, Opusc. vi. p. 145 sq., 
and Destiny of Creature, p. 115. 

we®Y tuady] ‘with you;’ not exactly 
‘tecum et cum tota ecclesia tibi commis- 


si’ (Mill, Prolegom. p. 86), as there is 
no menticn throughout the Epistle of the 
Church at Ephesus; but simply ‘ with 
thee and those with thee.’ This bene- 
diction is somewhat singular as being 
twofold, to Timothy separately, and to 
Timothy and those with him: 1 Cor 
Xvi. 28, 24, is also twofold, but to the 
same persons. 


THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 










ae roby fay a7 
ag, a) ate 


sali = rari 
eibe iaye uns 





INTRODUCTION. 


Tue Epistle to Titus was written by St. Paul apparently only a short 
time after his missionary visit to the island of Crete (ch. i. 5), and when 
on his way to Nicopolis to winter (ch. iv. 12). On the occasion of that visit 
he had left his previous companion, Titus, in charge of the churches of that 
island, and may not unreasonably be supposed to have availed himself of an 
early opportunity of writing special instructions to him concerning the duties 
with which he had been entrusted (ch. i. 5). 

If we are correct in supposing that the Nicopolis above alluded to was 
the well-known city of that name in Epirus (see notes on ch. iv. 12), we may 
conceive this Epistle to have been written from some place in Asia Minor, 
perhaps Ephesus (Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 566, ed. 2) [p. 460, 
Am. ed.], at which the apostle might have stayed a short time previous to 
the westward journey. If we further adopt the not unreasonable supposition 
that the apostle was arrested soon after his arrival at Nicopolis, and forwarded 
from thence to Rome (Conyb. and Hows. loc. cit.), and also agree to consider 
the year of his martyrdom (see Jntrod. to 2 Tim.), we may roughly fix the 
date of this Epistle as the summer of A.D. 66 or 67, according as we adopt 
the earlier or later date for the apostle’s martyrdom. Whichever date we 
select, it will clearly be most natural to suppose that the winter alluded to 
in this Epistle (ch. iv. 12) is not the same as that referred to in 2 Tim. iv. 21, 
but belongs to the year before it. If we suppose them the same (comp. 
Alford, Prolegom. Vol. 111. p. 97), the occurrences of 2 Tim. will seem some- 
what unduly crowded ; compare Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 573, 
note (ed. 2) [p. 467, Am. ed.]. 

The object of the Epistle transpires very clearly from its contents. The 
apostle not having been able to remain long enough in Crete to complete the 
necessary organization of the various churches in the island, but having left 
Titus to complete this responsible work, sends to him all necessary instruction, 

24 


186 ° INTRODUCTION. 


both in respect of the discipline, ecclesiastical (ch. i. 5 sq., comp. ch. iii. 10) 
and general (ch. ii. 1 sq., ch. iii. 1 sq.), which he was to maintain, and the 
erroneous teaching which he was to be ready to confront (ch. i. 13 sq., ch. 
iii. 9, al.). The Cretan character had long been unfavorably spoken of (ch. 
i. 12), and, as we learn from this Epistle, with so much truth (ch. i. 13, 16, 
ch. ili. 1 sq.), that though Titus was instructed by the apostle to come to him 
at Nicopolis (ch. iii. 12), but ashort time probably after he would have re- 
ceived the Epistle, it was deemed fitting by the apostle that he should have 
written instructions for his immediate guidance. On the adaptation of the 
contents to the object of the writer, see Davidson, Introduction, Vol. 111. p. 
90 sq. | 

On the genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle see the Introduction to 
the First Epistle to Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles in regard to this ques- 
tion must be regarded as a whole; no writer of credit, except Schleiermacher, 
having failed to admit that they must all be attributed to one writer. 


THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


CHAPTER I. 


AYAOZ 8o0ir0s Geod, dmdctoros 8é 


*Inood Xpictod Kata Tiotw ékrexTav 


Apostolic address and 
salutation. 


1. "Inood Xpiorod| So Lachm. with D°EFGHJK; mss. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, 
De W., and Huth. (e sil.) ; the order is inverted by Tisch. only with A; 3 mss. ; 
Tol., Copt., Syr.-Phil. ; Ambrst. (ed.), Cassiod. There certainly does not seem 
sufficient authority for any change of the received text in the present case ; indeed 
it may be remarked that Tisch. appears to have been somewhat precipitate in always 
maintaining the sequence amoor. Xp.’Ino. in St. Paul’s introductory salutations. 
In 1 Cor. i. 1, and 2 Tim. i. 1, certainly, in Col. i. 1, and 1 Tim.i. 1, probably, 
and perhaps in Eph. i. 1, and Phil. i. 1 (SodA0c), this order may be adopted ; but in 
Rom. i. 1 (d0dA0s), 2 Cor. i. 1, and here, it seems most insufficiently supported, and 
is rightly rejected by Lachmann. It is not perhaps too much to say that some pass- 
ing thought in the apostle’s mind may have often suggested a variation in order ; 
in ver. 4, for example, Xp. Inc. { Tisch.) seems more probable, "Incot and cwrijpos 
being thus brought in more immediate contact. It is not well to be hypercritical, 
but variations even in these frequently recurring words should not wholly be passed 
over. 


CuarteR I. 1. d00A0s @cod] ‘a Acts xvi. 17, Rev. xv. 3, compare ib. x. 


servant of God ;’ the more general de- 
signation succeeded by amdéor. k. T. A. 
the more special. On all other occasions 
St. Paul terms himself dodA0s 1 X., Rom. 
i. 1, Phil. i. 1, comp. Gal. i. 10; so also 
James i. 1, 2 Pet. i. 1, Jude 1, comp. 
Rey. i. 1. Surely a forger would not 
have made a deviation so very noticea- 
ble: in salutations more than in any- 
thing else peculiarities would have been 
avoided. The expression itself occurs 


7; and ina slightly different application, 
1 Pet. ii. 16, Rev. vii. 3. 

amdéatoros Sé| ‘and further an apos- 
tle,’ etc. ; more exact definition. The d¢ 
here has not its full antithetical force 
(Mack), but, as in Jude 1, appears only 
to distinguish and specify by the notice 
of another relation in which the subject 
stood to another genitive ; see especially 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 359; compare 
Winer, Gr. § 53.7. b, p. 393, and the 


188 


a , a 
Ocod kal ériyvwow arnelas THs Kat evogPevay, 


list of examples (though not very criti- 
cally arranged) in Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
Vol. 1. p. 388. Forgetfulness of this 
common, perhaps even primary (comp. 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 155) use of 6¢ has led 
several expositors into needlessly artifi- 
cial and elliptical translations ; compare 
even Peile zn loc. Kata 
mloriv «.7.A.| ‘for the faith of God’s 
elect ;’ the miotis Tv éxd. is the destina- 
tion of the apostleship : not ‘secundum 
fidem,’ Vulg., Clarom., which, though 
defended by Matthies, seems very unsat- 
isfactory ; the faith or knowledge of in- 
dividuals cannot, without much explain- 
ing away (compare Peile), ever be the 
rule or norma of the apostle’s office. The 
meaning is thus nearly as enunciated 
by Theophylact, mpds 7d moredoa rods 
éxAextovs 5 €uod, scarcely so much as va 
diddoKw Tovs eKA. Thy eis avTov TioTLY 
(Coray), and the sentiment is parallel to 
Rom. i. 5. Though it may be admitted 
that the idea of ‘ object,’ ‘intention,’ is 
more fully expressed by eis and mpdés 
(Matth.), it still seems hopeless to deny 
that card in such examples as Kara Séav, 
Thucyd. vi. 31, kad’ aprayhv, Xenoph. 
Anab. 11. 5. 3, al., plainly points to and 
implies some idea of purpose; see Rost 
u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 11.3, Vol. 1. p. 1598, 
Jelf, Gr. § 629. If it be not undue re- 
finement, we may say that in the three 
prepositions, eis, mpds, kara, ‘object’ is 
expressed in its highest degree by the 
first, and in its lowest by the last; but 
that the two former are very near to each 
other in meaning, while xara does not 
rise much above the idea of ‘special ref- 
erence to,’ ‘destination for.” We might 
thus perhaps say eis rather marks imme- 
diate purpose, mpds ultimate purpose, Kata 
destination: compare notes on Eph. iv. 
12. These distinctions must however be 
applied with great caution. It need 
scarcely be said that there is here no pa- 


PUTS . 


Crap. DME. 
2 ér édridt 


renthesis; see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p. 
499, éxAekT ay @eod} 
‘the chosen of God.’ There is nothing 
proleptic in the expression, sc. Tis éAo- 
vis tovs atlovs, Theodoret, and more 
expressly, De Wette: the faith of the 
elect’ forms one compound idea, it is on 
the wioris rather than the defining geni- 
tive that the moment of thought princi- 
pally rests. Nay, further, Acts xiii. 48 
shows this,— that election is not in con- 
sequence of faith, but faith in conse- 
quence of election; compare Eph. i. 4, 
and notes zn loc. éemiyvwouv 
&A7&.] ‘full knowledge of the truth ;’ t.e. 
of evangelical truth, compare Eph. i. 13; 
‘in hoe, inquit, missus sum apostolus ut 
electi per me credant et cognoscant veri- 
tatem,’ Estius. ’AAfSem has thus refer- 
ence to the object (surely not to be resolv- 
ed into a mere adjective, THs aAndwijs 
evoeB., Coray), émlyywors to the subject ; 
on the latter (‘accurata cognitio’) see 
notes on Eph.i. 17. This ‘ truth’ is de- 
fined more exactly by the clause tis kar’ 
evoéBerav, compare notes on 2 Tim. i. 18, 
HSM vig ese 
Betav may be translated ‘ according to 
godliness’ (see notes on 1 Jim, vi 3), 
but as Gospel truth can scarcely be said 
to be conformable to eto éBera (still less to 
be ‘regulated by’ it, Alf.) and as it is 
not probable that the preposition would 
be used in the same sentence in different 
senses, the more natural meaning seems, 
‘which is (designed) for godliness,’ scil. 
which is ‘most naturally productive of 
holy living and a pious conversation,” 
South, Serm. 5, Vol, 111. p. 214 (Tegg). 
The meaning adopted by Huth., ‘ which 
is allied to’ (‘ bezeichnet die Angehorig- 
keit’), even in such passages as Rom. x. 
2,is more than doubtful ; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 49. d, p. 359. On the meaning of ev- 
oéBea, see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 2. 

2. én é€Amwide «7. A.] "resting on 


f) > , 
KaT EVO E- 


Cuae. I. 2, 3. 


US |. 


189 


fol % / A > fb €) 2: \ \ \ , > , 
faijs aiwvion, hv érnyyethato 6 aapevdys Oceds mpd ypovev aiwvior, 
3 épavépwoev bé Katpois idiows Tov AOYov avTod ev KnpUypaTe b 


hope of eternal life,’,—not ‘in spem,’ 
Vulg., Clarom., Goth. (‘du’): comp. 
Rom. iv. 18, viii. 20, 1 Cor. ix. 10: hope 
is the bas’s on which all rests, see Winer, 
Gr. § 48. c, p. 849. The connection of 
the clause is not perfectly clear; it can 
hardly be connected with amécroAos, as 
it would thus form a co-ordinate clause 
to Kata miotw kK. T. A., and would more 
naturally be introdnced by some specify- 
ing particle; nor can it be attached to 
énlyyvwow x. T. A., as this would violate 
the close union mioris and émiyv. We 
must then, with De Wette and Huther, 
and, as it would seem, Chrys. and The- 
odoret, refer it to the whole clause, kata 
miotw — evaeBeray: the apostle’s calling 
had for its destination the faith of the 
elect and the knowledge of the truth, and 
the basis on which all this rested was the 
hope of eternal life. 

ernyyetrAato] ‘promised,’ ‘ proclaim- 
ed, sc, in the way of a promise ; so Rom. 
iv. 21, Gal. iii. 19. The force and truth 
of the éemayyeAla is then enhanced by the 
unique expression (in the N. T.), dpev- 
dhs Ocds; compare, however, for the sen- 
timent, Heb. vi. 18, and for the expres- 
sion, Burip. Orest. 364, TAadros aWevdis 
Seds. Twpd xpdvarv aia- 
viwv] ‘before eternal times.’ It is not 
easy to decide whether xpévor aidyvioe are 
here to be considered (a) as equivalent 
to mpd Tv aidvwv (Theod., Alf., Words- 
worth, al.), as in 2 Tim. i. 9, or (b) as 
simply ‘very ancient times’ (ed. 1. Wie- 
sing.), moAAovs kal paxpous xpévous (Co- 
ray); comp. Calv. in loc. In favor of 
(b) is the reflection that though it may 
be truly said that God loved us from all 
eternity (Cicum.), it still cannot strictly 
be said that Cw} aidévios was promised be- 
fore all eternity (see Hammond in loc.) : 
in favor of (a) is the use of aiévos in the 
preceding member, and the partial paral- 


lel afforded by 2 Tim. i.9. On careful 
reconsideration the preponderance is per- 
haps to be regarded as slightly in favor 
of (a) and the éAms itself and general 
counsels relating to it, rather than the 
specific promise of it, to be conceived as 
mainly referred to. 

3. €pavépwoev dé] ‘but manifest- 
ed ;’ in practical though not verbal an- 
tithesis to érnyyelAaro, ver. 2; the pri- 
mary emayyeala (Gen. iii. 15), yea, even 
the cardinal érayyeAia to Abraham (Gal. 
iii. 8) required some further revelation 
to make it fully gavepdv. The more 
strict antithesis occurs in Coloss. i. 26, 
where, however, the allusion was differ- 
ent ; compare Rom. xvi. 25, 26, 2 Tim 
1.9, 10. The accus. object after. epave- 
pwoer is clearly roy Adyov avrod, not (why 
(Cicum., al.), or éAmlda (wis (Heinr.). 
The apostle changes the accus. for the 
sake of making his language more exact ; 
(wh aidvios was, strictly speaking, in re- 
gard of its appearance, future: the Gos- 
pel included both it and all things, whe- 
ther referring to the present or the future ; 
see Theophyl. zn loc., who has explained 
the structure clearly and correctly. 
katpots tdtors] ‘in his own,’ t.e. Sin 
due seasons ;’ rots appo (ovat, Tots apeAn- 
pévois, Theophyl. On the expression 
and the peculiar nature of the dat., see 
notes on 1 Tim.ii.6. Here and in 1 Tim. 
vi. 15 (compare Acts i. 7), the reference 
to the subject, God, is so distinct that 
the more literal translation may be main- 
tained. Toy Adyoyv avTod| 
‘ His word,’ t. e. as more fully defined by 
év knpvyuate xk. 7. A., the Gospel, which 
was the revelation both of the primal 
mystery (Rom. xvi 26), and all succeed- 
ing éemayyeAlat, and was announced to 
man in the kjpuyua of the Lord and His. 
apostles. To refer it to the Logos, with 
Jerome, CGicum., and others, is wholly 


190 


> wi TIN <f Eh) \ a a oa A 
erioTevSnv ey Kat emruTayny Tod cwThpos 7uov Oeod, 
yunolw téxve Kata Kowhy lot. 


TITUS. 


Cuar. I. 4, 5. 


4 Tit» 


/ A > VA > X\ lel 
xapis Kal elpnvn aro Ocod 


matpos Kal Xpiotod 'Incod tov cwripos nuav. 


unsatisfactory. On the change of con- 
struction, see Winer, Gr. § 63. 1, p. 501, 
where numerous examples are cited of 
far more striking anacolutha. 
db émiotedany eyo] ‘with which I 
was intrusted ;’ on this construction, see 
Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p. 204, and compare 
notes on Gal. ii. 7. 
émitayhy K.7.A.] ‘according to the 
commandment of our Saviour God ;’ so, 
only with a slight change of order, 1 Tim. 
i.1. It has been suggested that the Sec- 
ond Person of the blessed Trinity may 
be here intended ; compare notes on ch. 
iii. 6, and Usteri, Lehrd. 11. 2. 4, p. 310: 
the analogy of 1 Tim. i. 1, renders this, 
and perhaps also ch. ii. 11, very doubt- 
ful. The agidmoroy implied in the 6 
émorevanv (Chrys.) is further defined 
and enhanced by the declaration that it 
was not ‘ proprio motu,’ but in obedience 
to a special command; see notes on 1 
Tim. l. c., where the clause is considered 
more at length. 

4.Titre yynolw téKxve| ‘to Titus, 
my true (genuine) child.’ The receiver of 
this epistle is far too distinctly mentioned 
to make the supposition admissible that 
it was addressed (comp. iii. 15) to the 
Church, see Wiesing. Hinleit. 1. 1, p. 260. 
Of Titus comparatively little is known. 
His name does not occur in the Acts, but 
from the Epistles we find that he was a 
Greek (Gal. ii.3), converted, as the pres- 
ent verse seems to imply, by St. Paul 
himself, and with the apostle at Jerusa- 
lem on his third visit (notes on Gal. ii. 
1). He was sent by St. Paul, when at 
Ephesus, to Corinth (2 Cor. vii. 6), on 
some unknown commission (Meyer on 
2 Cor. p. 8), possibly with some reference 
to a collection (2 Cor. viii. 6, 7 p o evipta- 
vo); is again with the apostle in Mace- 
donia (2 Cor. ii. 18, compare with vii. 


kav 


5), and is sent by him with the second 
Epistle to Corinth (2 Cor. viii. 6, 16 sq.). 
The remaining notices of Titus are sup- 
plied by the Pastoral Epistles; see 2 
Tim. iv. 10, Tit. i.5 sq., iii. 12. Accord- 
ing to tradition, Titus was bishop of 
Crete (Euseb. Hist. 111. 4), and died on 
that island (Isid. de Vit. Sanct. 87); see 
Winer, RWB. s.v. ‘ Titus,’ Vol. 11. p. 
625, and compare Acta Sanct. (Jan. 4), 
Vol. x. p. 163. On the expression yw7- 
olw Téxvw, see notes on 1 Tim. i. 2. 
Kata Kotvnv wierey] ‘in respect of 
(our) common faith ;’ ‘ fidei respectu quae 
quidem et Paulo patri et Tito filio com- 
munis erat,’ Beza, thy ainapérnta ivit- 
ato, Chrys.: a reference to the faith that 
was common to them and all Christians 
(Bengel, Wiesing.) would, as Jerome 
suggests, be here too general. Grotius 
finds in xowds a reference to the Grecks 
in the person of Titus, and to the Jews 
in the person of St. Paul; this seems 
‘argutius quam verius dictum.’ 

xdpis kat eipnhyvn] For an explana- 
tion of this form of Christian salutation, 
see notes on Gal. i. 2, and on Eph. i. 2. 
There seems enough authority to justify 
Tisch. in his insertion of «al, and the 
omission of the more individualizing 
ZAcos, with CIDEFG ; 73.137; Vulgate, 
Clarom., Copt., Syr., Ath.-Platt, Arm. ; 
Chrys. (expressly), and many others. 
The reading, however, cannot be pro- 
nounced certain, as cos ( Rec.) is retain- 
ed in AC?KL; Syr.-Phil., al.; Theod., 
al., and is adopted by Lachmann. The 
addition tot owripos ju@y to Xp. Ine. 
(comp. iii. 6), is peculiar to this saluta- 
tion. 

5. awéAumév oe x. 7. aA.) ‘TI left 
thee in Crete. When this happened can 
only be conjectured. The various at- 
tempts to bring this circumstance within 


————— 


Cnar.I. 5, 6. 


I lefc thee in Crete to ordain 
elders, who must have all 
high moral qualities and Ta 
teach sound doctrine, 


the time included in the Acts of the 
Apostles (compare Wieseler, Chronol. p. 
329 sq.) seem all unsatisfactory, and 
have been well investigated by Wiesing., 
Einleit. 1. 4. p. 272 sq., and (in answer 
to Wieseler) p. 360. Language, histor- 
ical notices, and the advanced state of 
Christianity in that island, alike seem to 
lead us to fix the date of the epistle near 
to that of 1 Tim., and of this journey as 
not very long after the apostle’s release 
from his first imprisonment at Rome ; 
see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 338 sq. 
(Bohn), Conyb. and Howson St. Pau, 
Vol. 11. p. 565 (ed. 2), Guerike, Hinlett, 
§ 48. 1, p.396 (ed, 2). There seems no 
sufficient reason for supposing, with Ne- 
ander (p. 342), that Christianity was 
planted in Crete by St. Paul on this occa- 
sion ; reorganized it might have been, but 
planted by him it scarcely could have 
been, as the whole tenor of the epistle 
leads to the supposition that it had been 
long established, and had indeed taken 
sufficient root to break out into heresies. 
Christianity might have been planted 
there after one of the early dispersions ; 
Cretans were present at the Pentecostal 
miracle (Acts ii. 11) : see esp. Wiesing. 
on ver. 5. Ta AclrovTal 
‘the things that are lacking ;’ ‘que ego 
per temporis brevitatem non potui expe- 
dire, Beng. The more special direc- 
tions at once follow. 

étidtopdyadoan| ‘further set in order ;’ 
the prep. ef, according to its common 
force in compos., denotes ‘insuper;’ St. 
Paul SiwpSdécaro, Titus émidiopSotTa, 
Beng. The reading is far from certain, 
but on the whole Zisch. seems to have 
rightly adopted the middle; the form 
émd.opsaons (Lachm.), though well sup- 
ported (AE1; compare D1 éravopSécns, 
and FG éeopséons), might have had its 


SiLTTS.. 191. 


7 | 
5 Tovrov xdpw amédurov ce ev Kpytn, va 
tb > 7 \ / 
Aetrovta emrOiopYoon Kal Kataotions Kata 
/ 
Tow mpecBurtépors, ws eyo cou SuetaEduny, § et 


termination suggested by karaorhons be- 
low. The middle it must be owned has 
here scarcely any force (Winer, Gr. § 38. 
6, p. 230), unless it be taken as an in- 
stance of what is now called an intensive 
or ‘dynamic’ middle; see Kriiger, 


Sprachl. § 52, 8 sq., and comp. notes on 


1 Tim. iv. 6. kata wdérrr| 
“in every city,’ ‘from city to city ;’ ‘ oppi- 
datim,’ Calvin; compare Acts xiv. 23, 
XEtporovncavtes Kat’ exkAnolay mpeaBu- 
tépous (Tisch.), and as regards the ex- 
pression, Luke viii. 1, Acts xv. 21, xx. 
23. The deduction of Bp. Taylor, ‘ one 
in one city, many in many’ (Kpisce. § 
15), is certainly precarious. On the con- 
nection between kara and avd, both in 
this distributive, and in other senses, see 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 183 sq. 

@s éy@k.T.A.| ‘as I directed thee ;’ 
in reference, as De W. says, not only to 
the ‘ Dass,’ but the ‘ Wie,’ as the follow- 
ing requisitions further explain; the 
apostle not only bid Titus perform this 
duty, but taught him how to do it wisely 
and efficiently. This verb is more com- 
monly (in the N. T.) active when joined 
with a dat. (Matth. xi. 1, 1 Cor. ix. 14, 
xvi. 1), the middle, however (with dat.), 
occurs Acts xxiv. 23. This again seems 
more a ‘dynamic’ middle than the ordi- 
nary middle ‘ of interest.’ The force of 
the compound diatdcow may be felt in 
the ‘dispositio, sc. eorum qu incompos- 
ita vel implicata et perplexa erant ’ (com- 
pare 1 Cor. xi. 34), which a directive 
command tacitly involves: see Winer, 
de Verb. Comp. Fasc. v. p. 7. 

6. ef ris Kk. 7.A.] ‘tf any one be unac- 
cused, have nought laid to lus charge;’ «i 
pndels Zoxev emokiwo ev tH (wn, Chrys. 
The form of expression certainly does 
not seem intended to imply that it was 
probable few such would be found (com- 


ve 


192 


TITUS. 


Cuap. I, 7. 


Tis €oTly avéeyKANTOS, plas yuvaLKdS avnp, TéKVA ExwY TLOTA, fi) 
ev Katnyopla aowtias 7) avuTotaxta. 7 Set yap Tov éricKoToV 


pare Heydenr.) ; it only generally marks 
the class to which the future presbyter 
was necessarily to belong. For the ex- 
act meaning of avéyka. (‘sine crimine,’ 
Vulg.), see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 10, and 
Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 31. 

mids yuvatkds avnp| ‘a husband of 
one wife:’ for the meaning of this ex- 
pression see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 2. The 
remark of Chrysostom may be here ad- 
duced, as certainly illustrative of the 
opinion held in the early Church ; tore 
yap amavres, tore, bt ef ph KeKwAUTOL 
mapa Tav vouwy Td wh Sevrépois dutreiv 
yapots, GAN Bums WoAAas Exes TO Tpayua 
Katnyoplas. Tékva k.T.A.| 
‘having believing children ;’ the empha- 
sis seems to rest on miota; the Christian 
mpeaBvrepos was not to haye heathen, Ju- 
daizing, or merely nominally-believing 
children; comp. 1 Tim. ili. 4, 5, where 
this requisition is more fully expressed. 
The expression, not perhaps without rea- 
son, has been urged as a hint that Chris- 
tianity had been established in Crete for 
some time. 
kK. T.A.| ‘not in accusation of dissolute- 
ness,’ i.e. ‘not accused of,’ etc., Auth. 
Ver. The rarnyopia (John xviii. 29, 1 
Tim. v. 19) is. as it were, something in 
which they might be involved, and out of 
which they were to take care to be al- 
ways found: od «fre uy GmAGs &owros 
[etrev awA@s wh &o., conject. Bened.], 
GAAG pnde diaBorny 
Chrysost. On the meaning and deriva- 
tion of dowrla, see notes on Eph. v. 18. 

4 &vutdtakral ‘or unruly,’ scil. diso- 
bedient to their parents; the reason is 
more fully given, 1 Timothy iii. 5, para- 
phrased by Theophyl., 6 yap ra oire?a 


2 


év kaTnyopla 


éxew Tor.avTny, 


rékva ph Taidevoas, TAS UAAoLs pudpicer. 
For the meaning of avumdér., see notes on 
1 Tim. i. 9. . 

7. rov émlokomoy] ‘every bishop,’ 


or, according to our idiom, ‘a bishop ;’ 
on the article see notes.on Gal. iii. 20 ; 
and on the meaning of the term ézicr.,’ 
and its relation to rpeoBurepos, see notes 
on1 Tim.iii.1. The apostle here changes 
the former designation into the one that 
presents the subject most clearly in his 
official capacity, the one in which his re- 
lations to those under his rule would be 
most necessary to be defined. The ex- 
cellent treatise of Bp. Pearson, Minor 
Works, Vol. 1. p. 271 sq., may be added 
to the list of works on episcopacy noticed 
on | Tim. /, c.: his positions are that 
episcopal government was ‘ sub Apostolis, 
ab Apostolis, in Apostolis,’ p. 278. 

@s @co0d oixoy.| ‘as being God’s stew- 
ard ;? ®eovd not without prominence and 
emphasis. While the previous title is 
enhanced and expanded, the leading re- 
quisition (avéykxA.) is made more evident- 
ly necessary from the position occupied 
by the subject: he must indeed be avéy- 
kAntov, as he is a steward of the olkos 
@cov, the Church of the living God (1 

Tim. iii. 15). On this use of és, see notes 

on Eph. vy. 28. Both on this account, 

and the more pregnant meaning of oixo- 

véuos, 1 Cor. iv. 1 (compare 1 Peter iy. 

10) is not a strict parallel of this pas- 
sage. Bh avaddy| ‘not 
self-willed ;’? not, in a derivative sense, 

‘haughty,’ Goth. (hauh-hdirts’), but, as 

Syriac correctly, though somewhat para- 


Mt A; oO ”m vv 
phrastic., Chad tee pod Ado 
[ductus voluntate sui-ipsius]; thy 8 ai- 
Sev aitapeckerav Aéyw, Greg. Naz. 
Vol. 11. p 199. The adjective, as its de- 
rivation suggests (atrds, 75oua), implies 
a self-loving spirit, which in seeking only 
to gratify itself is regardless of others, 
and is hence commonly dmephpavos, Su- 
pédns, mapdvouos, Hesych.; rightly defin- 
ed as ‘qui se non accommodat aliis, id- 


Cuap. I. 8. 


BE UiS. 


193 


avéyxdntov eivat ws Oeod oixovoyor, yn avSddn, wy dpyidov, wr 
Tapowov, (I) TAHAKTHV, pr alaxpoxepdj, ®& GAA Pidokevov, pir- 


eoque omnibus incommodus est, moro- 
sus, Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 74; see espec. 
Theophrast. Charact. xy., [Aristot.] JZ. 
Moral. 1. 29, the essay on this word in 
Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 626, and the 
numerous examples in Wetst, 7m loc., and 
Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 320. It occurs 
in the N. T. only here and 2 Pet. ii. 10, 
ToAunTal avddders. Winer has 
here remarked that «i rather than od is 
properly used; as the qualities are mark- 
ed which the assumed model bishop ought 
to have to correspond to his office (Gr. § 
59. 4. obs., p. 566, ed. 5,— apparently 
withdrawn from ed. 6): in a general 
point of view, the observation is just, but 
in this particular case the uy is probably 
due to the objective form of the sentence 
in which it stands; see Donalds. Gr. § 
594. opytaoy], ‘soon angry,’ 
‘trascible ;’ dm. Aeyou. in N.'T.; thus 
specially defined by Aristotle (thie 1v. 


11), of pev ovy bpyiAo taxéws mey dpyt- 


> 


Covrat kal ois ov Set nal ed’ ois od Set Kad 
uaaAdAov 2) Set, mavovra 5€ Taxéws. The 
lengthened termination -Aos, especially 
in -nAds, -wAds, denotes ‘habit,’ ‘ cus- 
tom,’ Buttm. Gr. § 119. i3. On the 
two following epithets, mdpoiwoy and 
mAnKTHY, see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 3, and 
On aicxpoxepdq, 2b. ili. 8, and compare 
below, ver. 11. 

8. piAdéevov] ‘hospitable;’ so 1 
Tim. iii. 2, compare v. 10, 3 John 5, 6. 
This hospitality, as Conybeare remarks, 
would be especially shown when Chris- 
tians travelling from one place to another 
were received and forwarded on their 
journey by their brethren. The precept 
must not, however, be too much limited ; 
compare Heb. xiii. 2. 
ptrAdyaSov] ‘a lover of good,’ ‘ benig- 
num,’ Vulg., Clarom.; see notes on 2 
Tim. ii. 8. Here at first sight the mas- 
culine reference (‘bonorum amantem,’ 


Jerome) might seem more plausible as 
following p:Adgevov (Est.); still, on the 
other hand, the transition from the spe- 
cial to the general, from hospitality to 
love of good and benevolence, would ap- 
pear no less appropriate; see Wisdom 
vil. 22, where the reference (though so 
asserted in Schleusner, Lex. s. v.) does 
not seem to persons. Both meanings 
are probably admissible (Rost u. Palm, 
Lex. s. v.), but the analogy of similar 
compounds (e. g. piAdkados) would point 
rather to the neuter. 

céppoval ‘discreet,’ or ‘ sober-minded ;’ 
see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 9, where the mean- 
ing of cwppoctyn is briefly investigated. 
dikatov, bacrov] ‘righteous, holy ;’ 
comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10, Eph. iv. 24. The 
ordinary distinction recapitulated by Hu- 
ther, mep) wtv avSpmmovs Slkasos, wep) dé 
Seovs botos (see Plato, Gorg. p. 507 B), 
does not seem sufficiently exact and com- 
prehensive for the N. Test. Atkaios, as 
Tittmann observes, ‘ recte dicitur, et qui 
jus fasque servat, et qui facit quod hones- 
tum et zquum postulat,’ Synon. 1. p.21: 
Sovos, as the same author admits (p. 25), 
is more allied with ayvds, and, as Har- 
less has shown (Hphes. p. 427), involves 
rather the idea of a ‘holy purity,’ see 
notes on Eph. iv. 24, The derivation of 
dows seems very doubtful; see Pott, 
Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 126, compared 
with Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 436. 
éyxpati| ‘temperate ;’ dr. Acydu. in 
N. T., but the subst. occurs in Acts xxiv. 
25, Gal. v. 23,2 Pet. i.6, and the (nearly 
unique) verb in 1 Corinth. vii. 9, ix. 25. 
The meaning is sufficiently clear from 
the derivation (tv maSous kpatotyta, Tov 
kal yAdrrT7s Kal Xelpds Kal OpPIaAuUGv ako- 
Adotwy, Chrys.), and though of course 
very pertinent in respect of ‘libido’ (com- 
pare De Wette), need in no way be lim- 
ited in its application; compare Sui- 


25 


194 


r , P. 24 b] a 
ayasov, cwppova, dikatov, OcLov, eyKparTn, 


TITUS. 


Cuap. I. 9, 10, 


9 2 , a 
AVTEX OME VOV TOU 


\ \ \ nr , ivf \ > \ n cA 
kata Thy dvdaxny TLTOD AoOyou, iva SvvaTos H Kat TapaKanely év 
TH dloacKkania TH Uyvatvovon Kal Tos avTineyovTas édéyyeLy 

Hs Se 7 Y eyXew. 


cer, Thesaurus s. v. Vol 1. page 1000. 
9. dvtrexdpuevor] ‘holding fast:’ 
comp. Matth. vi. 24, Luke xvi. 13, and 
in a somewhat more restricted sense 1 
Thess. v. 14, avtex- Tov aodevav. The 
av7i appears to involve a faint idea of 
holding out against something Aost/le or 
opposing (comp. Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), 
which, however, passes into that of stead- 
fast application to, ete.; ¢. g. Tijs SaAdo- 
ons, Thucyd. 1. 13, Polyb. 1. 58, 3; éa- 
midos wndeuias, Polyb. 1. 56. 9, in which 
latter author the word is very common ; 
see Schweigh. Ler. Polyb. s. v. 
Tov KaTa K.T.A.| ‘the faithful word 
according to the teaching ;’ i.e. the true, 
Christian doctrine set forth by, and agree- 
ing with apostolic teaching ; compare 2 
Tim. i. 13, Adywv, ay map’ euo0d Hroveas, 
ib. iii. 14, wéve év ofs ZuaSes. There is 
some slight difficulty in the explanation. 
The position of the words shows plainly 
that there are not two distinct specifica- 
tions in respect of the Adyos (Heydenr.), 
but one in respect of the mords Adyos, Viz., 
that it is kata Sidaxiv, ‘eum qui secun- 
dum doctrinam est fidelem sermonem,’ 
Vulg.: the only doubt is what meanings 
are to be assigned to kara and didax7; 
is it (2) ‘sure with respect to teaching 
others’ (‘ verba ipsius sint regula verita- 
tis,’ Jerome), d:5ax} having thus an ac- 
tive reference? or (b) ‘sure in accord- 
ance with the teaching received ’ (‘ as he 
hath been taught,’ Auth. Ver.), d:5ax} 
‘being taken passively? Of these (6) 
seems certainly to harmonize best with 
the normal meaning of mods ; the faith- 
ful word is so on account of its accord- 
ance with apostolic teaching. Of the 
other interpretation that noticed by 
Flatt, 2 (compare Calvin), ‘ doctrina eru- 
diendis hominibus inserviens,’ seems as 
unduly to press kara (comp. ver. 1) as 


that of Raphel (Annot. Vol. 11. p. 681), 
‘sermo doctrine,’ unduly obscures it. 
kal mapakadrety x.7.A.] ‘as well to 
exhort with the sound doctrine as,’ ete.: on 
the connection kat —al, see notes on 1 
Tim. iv. 10. °Ev is here instrumental, a 
construction perfectly natural, especially 
in cases like the present, when ‘ the ob- 
ject may be conceived as existing in the 
instrument or means,’ Jelf, Gr. § 622. 
3; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346, and 
notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18. On siya. di- 
dao. see notes on 1 Tim. i. 10. 
eréyxetv] ‘to confute:’ the words of 
Chrysostom are definite, 6 yap obx cidws 
Mdxeodat Tots -exSpois ... Kal Aoyiopovds 
Kadatpely ... WOppw éotw Spdvov didacKa- 
The clause leads on to the sub- 
ject of ver. 10. On robs aytiAéyovras 
(‘ gainsayers ’), see notes on ch. ii. 9. 

10. ydp] In confirmation, more espe- 
cially, of the preceding clause. 
mordol Kal avum.] ‘many unruly 
vain-talkers and inward deceivers.’ In his 
second edition Tisch. has here made two 
improvements ; he has restored ka) with 
DEFGKL; al.; Clarom., Aug., Vulg., 
al. ; Chrysost., Dam.,— its omission be- 
ing so obviously referable to an ignorance 
of the idiomatic moAbs nai (Jelf, Gr. § 
759. 4. 2); he has also removed the 
comma (Lachm.) after avur., as that word 
is clearly a simple adjective, prefixed to 
pataor. and ppevar., and serving to en- 
hance the necessity for émorouiCew The 
Maraton. (dr. Aeydu., but see 1 Tim. i. 6) 
and gpevardrat (am. Aeydu., but see Gal. 
vi. 3) are the leading substantial words. 
On ¢pevararns (‘mentis deceptor,’ Je- 
rome, ‘ making to err the minds of men,’ 
Syr.). which seems to mark the inward- 
working, insinuating character of the de- 
ceit (‘mentes hominum demulcent et 
quasi incantant,’ Calvin), see notes on 


Atkov. 


Cuap. I. 10,11. 


There are many evil teach- 
ere and seducers ; the Cre- 
tan character has always 
been bad, so rebuke and 


re 1] “ 
warn them. In the unbe- HS; ous 


PLP US: 


195 


BN 
10 Eicly yap ToAXol Kal dvuTétaKtot warat- 
t iN / / c ’ 
oNoyot Kal ppevaTraTal, padicTAa ol EK- TrEpLTO- 


def émiotopifew, oltiuves GAoUS 


lieving and polluted there is neither purity, faith, nor obedience, 


Gal. vi. 8, and on ‘ the case of deceivers 
and deceived’ generally, Waterl. Serm. 
xxix. Vol. v. p. 717 sq. 

of é« wepitomis|] defines more par- 
ticularly the origin of the mischief ; com- 
pare ver. 14. The deceivers here men- 
tioned were obviously not unconverted 
Jews, but Judaizing Christians, a state 
of things not unlikely when it is remem- 
bered that more than half a century be- 
fore this time Jews (perhaps in some 
numbers) were living in Crete; see Jo- 
seph. Antig. xvi. 12.1, ib. Bell. Jud. 
11. 7. 1, and Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 36, 
Vol. 11. p. 587 (ed. Mang.). On the 
expression of éx mepit., comp. notes on 
Gal. iii. 7. 

ll. obs Set x. 7. A.] ‘whose mouths 
must be stopped,’ Auth. Ver. ; a good idi- 
omatic translation, very superior to the 
Vulg. ‘ redargui,’ which, though making 
the reference to tovs avTiA. eAeyx., verse 
9, a little more evident, is not sufficiently 
exact. "Emoroui¢ew has two meanings ; 
either (a) ‘ frenis coercere,’ émiorome? rad 
eyxadweoet, Philo, Leg. Alleg. 111. 53, 
Vol. 1. p. 117 (ed. Mang.) ; compare 
James iii. 3, and the large list of exam- 
ples in Loesner, Observ. p. 425 ; or (b) 


> > ¥ 
‘obturare os,’ Beza, SOQ O-=2050 


[oceludere os] Syriac, Theoph., — the 
meaning most suitable in the present 
case, and perhaps most common ; see the 
examples in Wetstein and Elsner zn loc., 
the most pertinent of which is perhaps 
Lucian, Jup. Trag. § 35, ixadv oe aaro- 
pave emoTtouiCwr. 

oftives] ‘inasmuch as they ;’ explana- 
tory force of doris, see notes on Galat. 
iv. 24. dAous Kk. T.A.] 
‘overthrow whole houses,’ i. e. ‘subvert 
the faith of whole families,’ the emphasis 


resting apparently on the adjective. °Av- 
atpémw occurs again 2 Tim. ii. 18, but 
here, from its combination with of%kous, is 
a little more specific: examples of ava- 
tpemew, the meaning of which however 
is quite clear, are cited by Kypke, Obs. 
Vol. 11. p. 378. The formula is adopted 
in Conc. Chalced. Can. 23. 

& wh dei] ‘things they should not ;’ wh, 
not ov (as usually in the N. T.), after the 
relative ds; the class is here only spoken 
of as conceived to be in existence, though 
really that existence was not doubtful ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 55. 3, p. 426. In ref- 
erence to the distinction between & ov 
de? and & wy de?, Winer refers to the ex- 
amples collected by Gayler, Part. Neg. 
p. 240; as, however, that very ill-ar- 
ranged list will probably do little for the 
reader, it may be further said that & od 
Sez points to things which are definitely 
improper or forbidden, & pu Se? to things 
which are so, either in the mind of the 
describer, or which (as here) derive a 
seeming contingency only from the mode 
in which the subject is presented. On 
the use of ov and wy with relatives, see 
the brief but perspicuous statement of 
Herm. on Viger, No. 267, and Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 67. 4. 3. aisx pov 
képdous| ‘base gain, — marking em- 
phatically the utterly corrupt character 
of these teachers. It was not from fa- 
natical motives or a morbid and Pharisa- 
ical (Matth. xxiii. 15) love of proselytiz- 
ing, but simply for selfish objects and 
dirty gains. The words may also very 
probably have had reference to the gene- 
ral Cretan character ; the remark of Po- 
lybius is very noticeable ; kaddAov 3 6 
mept thy aicxpoxépdeav Kal mAcovetlay 
tpdmos otws emixwpider map aitois, do- 
re maps udvors Kpntauetor tay bardvtwv 


196 


le WS. 


Cuap. I. 12, 18. 


” , I , 7 Wren de®) a? , 
olxous avatpérrovaw SiddoKovres & wn Set aiaxpod Képdous yapw. 
12 eirrév tis €€ avTav ld10s atta mpopytns Kpijres del wedorat, 


kaka Snpia, yaortépes apyal. 13 4 paptupia atrn éotiv adySjs. 


avaIpdrwv pundey aicxpy voullecdat Kép- 
dos, Hist. v1. 46.3: see Meursius, Creta, 
vi. 10, p. 231. 

12. €& avr @y can only refer to those 
whom the apostle is about to mention by 
name,—the Cretans; tay Kpnray dte- 
Aéyxwv Td THs yyauns &BEBaov, Theodo- 
ret. To refer the pronoun to the pre- 
ceding of é« mwepiT., OY ToAAo) K. T. A. (as 
apparently Matth.), would involve the 
assumption that the Cretan Jews had 
assimilated all the peculiar evil elements 
of the native Cretan (see De Wette), a 
somewhat unnecessary hypothesis. The 
Cretans deserved the censure, not as be- 
ing themselves false teachers, but as read- 
ily giving ear to such. 

{S.tos avta@y mpop.| ‘their own prophet.’ 
There is here no redundancy ; 
states that he belonged to them, Yd.0s 
marks the antithesis; he was a prophet 
of their own, not one of another country, 
ov yep “lovdaiwy mpophtns, Theod.; see 
Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, p. 139. The pro- 
phet here alluded to is not Callimachus 
(Theod.), but Epimenides (Chrys., al.), a 
a Cretan, born at Cnossus or Gortyna, 
said to have been priest, bard, and seer 
among his countrymen, to have visited 
Athens about 596 B. c., and to have died 
soon afterwards above 150 years old. He 
appears to have deserved the title rpod. 
in its fullest sense, being termed a SeZos 
avnp, Plato, Legg. 1. p. 642, and coupled 
with Bacis and the Erythrean Sibyl by 
Cicero, de Div.1.18. The verse in ques- 
tion is referred by Jerome to the work of 
Epim., wep) xpnoua@v. For further de- 
tails see Fabricius, Bibl. Greca, x. 6, 
Vol. 1. p. 36 (ed. 1708), and Heinrich, 
Epimenides (Leips. 1801). 

wet pedortat] ‘alwaysliars.’ Repeat- 
ed again by Callimachus, Hymn. ad Jov. 
8, and if antiquity can be trusted, a char- 


GUT @V 


acter only too well deserved : hence the 
current proverb, mpbs Kpijta «pnri¢ew, 
Polyb. Hist. vi11. 21. 5, see also 2b. vi. 
48. 5, Ovid, Art. Am. I. 298: compare 
Winer, RWB. s. v. ‘ Kreta,’ Vol. 1. p. 
676, Meursius, Creta, 1v. 10. p. 223. 
Coray regards this despicable vice as 
perhaps a bequest which they received 
from their early Pheenician colonists ; 
compare Heeren, Histor. Researches, Vol. 
11. p. 28 (Translation). 

kaka Inpla, ‘evil beasts,’ in reference 
to their wild and untamed nature (comp. 
Joseph. Antig. xvii. 5. 5, wovnpoy Septov 
in reference to Archelaus, and the exam- 
ples in Wetst. and Kypke), and possibly, 
though not so pertinently, to their aic- 
Xpoxépdera and utter worthlesshess, Po- 
lyb. Hist. v1. 46. 3. They formed the 
Jirst of the three bad kdama’s (Kpiires, 
Karmddorat, KiAtkes, tpia dma KdKioTa), 
and appy. deserved their position. 
yartépes apyat] ‘idle bellies,’ t. 
‘do-nothing gluttons,’ Peile, comp. Phil. 
iii. 19; in reference to their slothful sen- 
suality, their dull gluttony and licen- 
tiousness ; ‘ gulz et inerti otio deditex,’ 
Est. The Cretan character which tran- 
spires in Plato, Legg. Book 1., in many 
points confirms this charge, especially in 
respect of sensuality. Further examples 
of apybs in the fem. form, nearly all from 
late writers, are given by Lobeck, Phryn. 
p. 105. 

13. 7 waptupta x.7.A.] * This tes- 
timony is true.’ It is very hasty in De 
Wette to find in this expression anything 
harsh or uncharitable. The nature of 
the people the apostle knew to be what 
Epimenides had declared it; their ten- 
dencies were to evil (‘dubium non est, 
quin deterrimi fuerint,’ Caly.), and for 
the sake of truth, holiness, and the Gos- 
pel, the remedy was to be firmly applied : 


Cuap. I. 14, 15. 


TITUS. 


on 


2a el} Say Ne 29 RI er WL © , ? rn hee 
de iv aitiay édeyye abtous arrotopas, iva tyiaivwow ev Th TicTes, 
4 un) mpocéxyovtes “Iovéaixots pious Kai évrorais avSpémev 
arrootpepopevov THv adiyjseav. 1 Tayta KaSapa Tois KaSapots’ 


see some wise thoughts of Waterland on 
this subject, Doct. of Trin. ch. 4. Vol. 
III. p. 460 sq. d0 hy aitlar| 
‘ for which cause,’ on account of these na- 
tional characteristics ; émeidy Fos avrots 
éotw itaudy Kad Sorcpdy kat axddracrov. 
Chrys. Compure notes on 2 Tim. i. 12. 
érXeyxe Kk. T.A.] ‘confute them, set them 
right, with severity ;’ not the deceivers so 
much as the deceived, who also by their 
ready acquiescence in the false teaching 
(Aous o%kous, ver. 11) might tend to pro- 
pagate the error. The adverb amrorduws 
(aKAnp@s, arapathtws, Hesych.) only 
oceurs again in 2 Cor. xiii. 10, (aoto- 
pla, Rom. xi. 22, in opposition to xpne- 
vérns) and, as the derivation suggests, 
marks the asperity (‘asperum et abscis- 
sum castigationis genus,’ Valer. Max. 
11. 7. 14) of the rebuke: in Dion. Hal. 
viii. 61, the substantive stands in opp. 
to 7d émeikés, and in Diod. Sic. xxx111. 
frag. 1, to nueporns. See further exam- 
ples in Wetstein, Vol. 11 p. 75, and es- 
pecially Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 179, 
compared with Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 
508. tva «.7.A.] ‘in order 
that they may be sound in the fuith ;’ object 
and intent of the recommended course of 
action. De Wette here modifies the 
meaning of iva as if it were used to spe- 
cify the substance of the reproof: such 
an interpretation is grammatically ad- 
inissible (Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, see notes 
on Eph. i. 17), but in the present case not 
necessary; the Cretan disciples were 
doctrinally sick (voootyres, 1 Tim. vi. 4) ; 
the object of the sharp reproof was to re- 
store them to health; compare Theodo- 
ret. The sphere and element in which 
that doctrinal health was to be enjoyed 
was iotts. 

14. uh mpogéxoryres| ‘not giving 
heed to;’ see notes on 1 Tim. i. 4 ; and 


on the do, here specially characterized 
as “Iovdaixol, see also notes on the same 
verse, where the nature of the errors con- 
demned by these Epistles is briefly stat- 
ed. evToAats avap.| 
“commandments of men’ (compare Matth. 
xv. 9, Col. ii, 22), in antithesis to the 
commandments of God (Wiesinger), 
though this antithesis, owing to the ne- 
cessarily close connection of avSpeémav 
and the tertiary predicate amootpepope- 
vev, must not be too strongly pressed : 
compare the following note. The con- 
text seems clearly to show that these éy- 
Todat were of a ceremonial character, and 
involved ascetical restrictions, ras mapa- 
Tnphoes TOY Bpwudtwy, Theophyl. They 
had, moreover, an essentially bad origin, 
Viz. avdp. amooTp. Thy GAnSelay: @ yuE- 
vacla owuatixhn, based not on the old cer- 
emonial law, but on the rules .of a much 
more recent asceticism, formed the back- 
ground of all these commandments. 
&mogTpepou. THY AANA] ‘turning 
aside from the truth,’ sc. ‘ turning aside as 
they do,’— not (if we adopt the strictest 
rules of translation) ‘who are turning 
away,’ etc. Alf.; see Donalds. Gr. § 492, 
and compare notes to Transl. On doc- 
Tpep., compare notes on 2 Tim. i. 15, and 
on the absence of the article before ao- 
otpepomevwy, Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126. 
If the article had been prefixed to the 
two substantives, and to the participle, 
then the two thoughts, that they were or- 
dinances of men, and that these men 
were also very bad men, would have 
been made more prominent; compare 
notes on (ral. iii. 26: if the article had 
been only before the part., then the &- 
Spwmo. would be considered an undefined 
class, which it was the object of the par- 
ticipial clause more nearly to specify ; 
see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 13. 


198 


TITUS. 


Cuap. I. 15, 16. 


tots dé peutappevors Kal amioto.s ovdev KaSapov, GAA pewlavTaL 


? lal Ae a Ps / 
avTov Kal 6 vods Kal 7 cuveldyats. 


16 @cdv dporoyovow eidévat, 


Tois bé épyous apvodvtat, BoedvKTO dvTEs Kal arrelSeis Kal Tpds 


lal ” > XN > i 
Tay Epyov ayayov adoK1p00. 


15. tadyvra] ‘all things, — not merely 
in reference to any ‘ ciborum discrimen,’ 
Caly., but with a greater comprehensive- 
ness (comp. ovdéy below), including ev- 
erything to which the distinction of pare 
and impure could be applied. Here, 
however, Chrysostom seems unduly in- 
clusive when he says, ovdev &xadapror, ei 
Hy Guaptia udyn; the statement must ne- 
cessarily be confined to such things and 
such objects as can be the materials and, 
as it were, the substrata for actions (De 
Wette); comp. Rom. xiv. 20. The in- 
sertion of wéy after mdyta is rightly re- 
jected by Tischend. and Lachmann, with 
ACD'E!FG, al.; being so very proba- 
bly occasioned by the following dé. Wi- 
ner (Gr. § 61. 4, p. 493 sq.) urges its 
juxtaposition to a word with which it is 
not naturally connected (Acts xxii. 3, 1 
Cor. ii. 15) as a reason why it was struck 
out; this is plausible, the uncial author- 
ity, however, seems too decided to admit 
of this defence. Tots 
KaSapots| ‘for the pure,’ scil., ‘for 
them to make use of ;’ dat. commodi, not 
dat. judicii, ‘ in the estimation of,’ which, 
though admissible in this clause (see ex- 
amples in Scheuerl. Synt. § 21. 5, p. 163, 
Winer, Gr. § 31. 4, p.190), would not 
be equally so in the second; the wemau- 
péevor and &moror do not merely account 
all things as impure (mapa Ty weutacu. 
ywoyny axddapra yryverat, (CEcum.), but 
convert them into such; ‘pro qualitate 
vescentium et mundum mundis et im- 
mundum  contaminatis fit,’ Jerome. 
Their own inward impurity is communi- 
cated to all external things; the objects 
with which they come in contact become 
materials of sin; compare De Wette in 
loc. amrtarors| ‘unbelieving ;’ 
a frightful addition to the preceding je- 


pucpmevors. Not only are they deficient 
in all moral purity, but destitute of all 
miorts. The former epithet stands in 
more exact antithesis to xadapois, while 
the latter heightens the picture. Practi- 
cal unbelief (ver. 16) is only too com- 
monly allied with moral pollution. On 
the form wewoayp. (with ACD! [wewiavp.] 
KL; al.), compare Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
35. GAAG meplavTar 
Kk. 7. A.] ‘but both their mind and their 
conscience have been polluted ;’ declaration 
on the positive side of what has just been 
expressed on the negative, and indirect 
confirmation of it. It need scarcely be 
observed that aAA&, is by no means equiv- 
alent to yap; the latter would give a rea- 
son why nothing was pure to the pollut- 
ed; the former states with full adversa- 
tive force the fact of an internal pollu- 
tion, which makes the former statement, 
‘that nothing external was pure to them,’ 
feeble when contrasted with it ; see espe- 
cially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 9. On 
the more emphatic enumeration xal—kal, 
see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10, and Donalds. 
Gr. § 550 sq. Novs is here not merely 
the ‘mens speculativa’ (comp. Sander- 
son, de Obl. Conse.§ 17, Vol. Iv. p. 13, 
ed. Jacobs.), but the willing as well as 
the thinking part of man (Delitzsch, 
Psychol. 1v.5, p. 140, Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 
II. 18. b, p. 54); see also the notes on 1 
Tim. vi. 5. SuvetSnors is the conscience, 
the moral consciousness within (see esp. 
notes on 1 Timothy i. 5); the two united 
thus represent, in the language of Beck, 
the ‘Lebenstrom in seinem Aus- und 
Einfluss zusammen,’ p. 49, note. Bp. 
Taylor (Ductor Dub. 1. 1.1. 7), some- 
what infelicitously regards the two terms 
as identical. 

16. 5uorAoyodarr] ‘they profess ;’ 


Cuap, IT. 1, 2. 


Charge the aged men to be 
sober and faithful ; the aged 
women to be holy them- Kania‘ 
selves and to school the zi 

younger women. 


they make an open confession of God, 
but practically deny it, being deficient in 
all true earnestness; ‘ quotiescumque 
vincimur vitiis atque peccatis, toties De- 
um negamus,’ Jerome. 

&pvovvtas| ‘deny (Him) ;’ in opposi- 
tion to 6uoa. The Vulg. (perhaps) and 
a few commentators (Wiesing., al.) sup- 
ply cidéva after dpvodvra. This does 
not seem necessary ; the use of apveio- 
Sa: with an accus. persone is so extremely 
common, that it is best, with Syr., to re- 
tain the simpler construction. Though 
so common in the N. Test., dpyetodar is 
only used by St. Paul in the Past. Epp. ; 
add Heb. xi. 24. BdceAvkK- 
tol] ‘abominable ;’ dr. Aeydu. in N.T.; 
compare Prov. xvii. 15, d«dSaptos Kal 
BdeAuKTés (PAB in, 2 Macc. i. 27, efou- 
Sevnuévous kal BoeAuKTobs. There is no 
oblique reference to idolatry (B5eAvyua- 
ra, Deut. xxix. 17, al.), nor necessarily 
to the abomination in which certain ani- 
mals, etc., were formerly held (Lev. xi. 
10), and which they might have still 
maintained, though this is more plausi- 
ble; compare Wiesing. It is simply 
said that their actions and principles 
made them ‘abominable’ (uontol, He- 
sych.) in the sight of God. The verb is 
used metaphorically in Attic writers, but 
not in a sense so far removed from the 
primary notion of (Bd€w) as in the LXX. 
and eccl. writers ; compare Aristophan. 
Vesp. 792. &ddKtpor| 
‘reprobate ;’ not actively ‘qui bonum 
probare non possunt,’ Bengel, but pas- 
sively, ‘reprobi,’ Vulg., Clarom., Goth. 
(‘uskusandi,—cogn. with ‘ choose ’), 
as in 2 Tim. iii. 8 and elsewhere in the 
N. T.; see notes in loc. The use of the 
word, if we except Heb. vi. 8, is confined 
to St. Paul. 


TITUS. 


199 


\ Ni A aN / ae s 
I]. S06 AdAe & mpéres 7H bryvawvovcn didac- 
2 ft io fa 
mpeaButas vnpadtous eivat, ceuvors, 
tA i 4 an n fal 
cappovas, vyaivovtas TH wlaTel, TH ayaTy, TH 


Cuaprer II. 1. od 8€] ‘ But do thou;’ 
address to Titus in contrast to these 
false teachers; so 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 5. 
Chrysostom has here missed the force of 
the contrasted address, aitol elow a&kd- 
Sapto., GAAG wh To’Twy Everey oryhons, 
compare also Theodoret; Titus is not 
tacitly warned not to be deterred or dis- 
heartened, but is exhorted to preach 
sound doctrine in opposition to their er- 
rors. AdAet| ‘ speak,’ ‘utter ;? 
‘ore non cohibito,’ Bengel. On the dif- 
ference between AadAeiv, ‘ vocem ore mit- 
tere’ [AaA-, Germ. lallen, comp. Benfey, 
Wurzellex. Vol. 11.p.9], Aéyew, ‘ dicere, 
sc. colligere verba in sententiam ’ (comp. 
Donalds. Cratyl. § 453), and eimeiy, ‘ ver- 
ba facere,’ see Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 80 
sq. TH bytaty. St5ack.| ‘the 
sound doctrine ;’ see notes on 1 Tim. i. 10. 

2. tpecBuras] ‘aged men,’ ‘ senes,’ 
Vulg., Clarom. ; not mpecfurépous, in an 
official sense: ‘in duas classes vewrépwy 
et mpecBurépwy dividunt apostoli popu- 
lum Christianum in unaqudque Eccle- 
sia,’ Pearson, Vind. Ign. (ad Lect.), p. 12 
(A.-C. Libr.). The infinitive with the 
accusative specifies the substance of the 
order which was contained in what Titus 
was to enunciate: comp. Madvig, Synt. 
§ 146. ynpaadtous| ‘sober,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.,— not ‘ watchful,’ Syriac 


<= een [excitati], and even Chrys. ; see 
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 2, and on 2 Tim. iv. 
5. On the meaning of ceuvds, com- 
pare notes on 1 Jim. ii. 2, and on that 
of cdppwyr, v0. ii. 9. 

TH wiore.] ‘in respect of faith ;’ dative 
‘of reference to,’ see notes on Gal. i. 22, 
and Winer, Gr. § 31.6, p.193. It may 
be observed that this expression may 
almost be interchanged with év and the 


200 


fi TOS, 


Cuap. II. 3, 4. 


bropovn * mpecRuTioas @oavTas év KaTacTHwaTL lepoTpeTrets, un 
SiaBorovs, un olv@ TOAND SeSovrwpevas, KaNodibacKdrovs, * va 


4. acwhpovi(wrw] So Rec. with CDEKL; al. (Griesb., De Wette, Hither, al.). 


Both Tisch. and Lachm. read cwdpovifovew with AFGH; al. 
sufficient evidence for a solecism so very glaring, 
In 1 Cor. iv. 6, Gal. iv. 17, this may be 


verse iva is used again and correctly. 


This does not seem 
especially when in the very next 


more easily accounted for; see notes on Gal. l. c., and compare Winer, Gr. § 41. 1, 


p. 259. 


dat.,/as in ch. i.13: this seems to confirm 
the remark in Gal. 1. c., that these sorts 
of datives may not uncommonly be con- 
sidered as species of the local dative ethi- 
cally used. Here the 7d ty:atvew of the 
aged men was to be shown in their faith ; 
it was to the province of that virtue that 
the exhibition of it was to be limited. 
brouovn| ‘patience ;’ ‘in ratione bene 
considerata stabilis et perpetua mansio,’ 
Cicero, de Invent. 11. 54. It is here join- 
ed with riots and aydrn, as in 1 Tim. 
vi. 11 (comp. 1 Thess. i. 3), and serves 
to mark the brave patience, the enduring 
fortitude, which marks the true Christian 
character ; see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 10, and 
comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 240. 

3. mpecButibas] ‘aged women;’ 
synonymous with the mpecBirepa, 1 Tim. 
vy. 2. On décatrws, compare notes on 1 


Tim. iii. 8; the aged women were not to’ 


be &s érépws in respect of any of the fore- 
going qualifications. 
‘in demeanor,’ 


> s 
ev KATACTH MATL 


o 
[osanlo [év oxphuari] Syriac; in 


meaning a little, but a little only, differ- 
ent from kataoctoAh, 1 Tim. ii. 9. In 
the latter text the prevailing idea is per- 
haps outward deportment as enhanced 
by what is purely external, dress, etc., in 
the present case outward deportment as 
dependent on something more internal, 
€.g. manner, gesture, etc., ‘ incessus et 
motus, vultus, sermo, silentium,’ Jerome ; 
see also Coray in loc. It is manifestly 
contrary to the true meaning of the word 
to refer it to the mere externals of dress 


on the one hand ( Ta TepiBoAata, Cicum.), 
and it seems inexact, without more pre- 
cise adjuncts in the context, to limit it 
solely to internals (‘ornatus virtutum,’ 
Beng.) on the other. Wetst. cites Por- 
phyr. de Abst. 1v. 6, 7d 5& ceuvdy KaK Tod 
kaTaoThuaros éwparo, with which comp. 
Ignat. Trall. § 3, 05 aitd 1d Katdornua 
LeydAn padnrela. Plutarch uses some- 
what similarly the curious adjective, ka- 
tastnuatixds, e.g. Tib. Gracch. § 2, idea 
mpoo@mov, Kal BAcupatit, Kal Kivhuare 
mpGos kal kataoT. jv. On the most suit- 
able translation, see notes in loc. 
iepowpemets| ‘ holy-beseeming, ‘as 
becometh holiness,’ Auth. Ver. ; the best 
gloss is the parallel passage, 1 Tim. ii. 
10, 5 mpémer yuvaitly émaryyeAAopevais Se- 
oo€éBeray; compare Eph. v. 3, xadds mpé- 
met Gytos. The word isan Gz. Aeydu. in 
the N. T., but not very uncommon else- 
where, e. g. Xenoph. Sympos. v111. 40, 
Plato, Theages, p. 122 p: see these and 
other examples in Wetst. On BiaBdaous, 
see notes on 1 Zim. iii. 11. 

wy otvw Kk. 7. A.) ‘not enslaved to much 
wine;’ an expression a little stronger 
than 1 Tim. iii. 8, wh ofv worArA@ mpoceé- 
xovres, and possibly due to the greater 
prevalence of that vice in Crete: this 
transpires clearly enough in Plato, Legg. 
I. and 11, comp. Book tr. § 11, p. 641. 
Karkod:ddonadrous| ‘teachers of what 
is good ;’ ‘honestatis magistre,’ Beza, 
not by public teaching, but, as the con- 
text implies by its specifications, in do- 
mestic privacy, én oixias, Chrysost. On 
kaAds compare notes on 1 Tim. iv. 4. 


Cuap. II. 4, 5. Beat 


cadpovitwow tas véas pidavopors eivar, pidotéxvovs, 


TUS. 201 


5 oo- 


dpovas, ayvds, oikoupovs, ayasds, UTotaccomevas Tois tOlols av- 


Spaow, iva pt) 6 Noyos TOV Seo 


4. tvya owppoviCwoiv K.7.A.] 
‘that they may school the young women to be, 
etc. ;’ maisebwow, Theoph.,— not exactly 
‘prudentiam doceant,’ Vulg., Claroman. 
(comp. Syr.), which, though perfectly 
correct per se, would here, on account of 
the following cdédppovas, be somewhat 
tautologous : numerous examples of this 
special sense of cwpp. are cited by Loesn. 
Obs. p. 427, from Philo, all apparently 
confirmed by its connection with, and 
juxtaposition to, the weaker vouSereiv. 
It may be remarked that in the corres- 
ponding passage, 1 Tim. vy. 2, Timothy 
is himself directed to exhort the vewrépas, 
here it is to be done by others : this was 
probably in consequence of the greater 
amount of practical teaching and exhor- 
tation which the Cretan women required. 
It does not seem necessary with Tisch. 
to advocate a solecistic reading when the 
correct mood is fairly supported; see 
crit. note. prradvdpouvs| 
‘lovers of their husbands ;’ 
TOUTO TOY KaTe THY oiklay ayasav, Chrys. 
This and the adjectives which follow, 
are, as elvat further suggests, dependent 
on the verb immediately preceding, and 
serve more specifically to define the na- 
ture and substance of the cwppovicuds. 
If the connection had been with AdAe as 
in ver. 8, the infinitive, as there, would 
more naturally have been omitted. Cal- 
vin evades this objection by referring 
giAdvop. and gidotéxy. to the véau, but 
ooppovas K.T.A., to the mpeoBurisdes : 
this, however, wholly mars the natural 
sequence of epithets. The véa are 
here, as the immediate context shows, 
primarily the young married women, but 
of course not exclusively, as four out of 
these epithets can belong equally to mar- 
ried or single ; comp. notes on ver. 6. 

5. c@ppovas] ‘sober-minded,’ ‘dis- 


7) Kepdraoy 


Brac dnphra. 


creet ;? see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 9. The 


more general is then followed by the 
more special ayvds, which here, as the 
subject and the context seem to require, 
has reference, not toa purity from mvev- 
marixds woAvouds (Coray), but more par- 
ticularly to ‘chastity;’ kal cduate Kab 
Siavola Kasapa amd Ths Tey GAAOTplov 
ka) pléews Kat émiuuias, Theophyl. 
oikovpovs| ‘keepers at home, Auth. 
Ver., ‘domisedas,’ ‘ casarias,’ Elsner ; 
more literally, Clarom. ‘domum custo- 
dientes,’ similarly Vulg., Syr., ‘domus 
curam habentes.’ According to Hesych. 
oixoupos is 6 dpoyticwy Ta Tod o%Kov Kab 
guvAdttwy, the Homeric odpos, ‘ watcher’ 
[possibly from op- ‘watch’ (?), Pott, 
Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 123, compare 
gpoupa|, giving the compound its defi- 
nite meaning: see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v., 
and the large collection of examples in 
Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 324 sq. The 
reading oikoupyovs (Lachm.), though well 
supported [ACD!FG], and now adopted 
by Tisch. (ed. 7), must still be considered 
doubtful, as no other example of its use 
has as yet been adduced ; the verb occurs 
Clem. Rom. 1.1, and apparently in ref- 
erence to this passage. It has also been 
found in Soranus (A. Db. 120%), de Arte 
Obst. v111. 21, but its association with 
kadédpiov makes the reading very doubt- 
ful. If it be adopted here, the meaning 
will be ‘workers at home,’ and the ex- 
hortation practically the same; there is 
to be no mepiepxetSat, 1 Tim. v. 13 ; home 
occupations are to preclude it. 

&yaSas is not to be joined with oixov- 
povs, as apparently Syr. and Theophyl., 
but regarded as an independent epithet 
= ‘benignas,’ Vulg., Arm., al.; com- 
pare Matth. xx. 15. On the distinction 
between dyaSds (‘qui commodum aliis 
prestat’) and dikasos (‘qui resti et ho- 

26 


202 


Exhort young men to be 
sober, being thyself a pat- 
tern ; exhort servants both 
to please their masters and 
to be trusty. 


nesti legem sequitur’), see Tittm. Synon. 
I. p. 19 sq.; compare notes on Gal. v. 
22. The interpretation of Bloomfield, 
‘good managers,’ according to which it 
is to be considered as ‘ exegetical of the 
preceding, is wholly untenable. It is 
rather added with a gentle contrast; the 
oixoupta was not to be marred by ‘ aus- 
teritas,‘ sc. ‘in servulos’ (Jerome), or 
by improper thrift (Heydenr.). 
brotaccopmévas K.7.A.] ‘submitting 
themselves to their own husbands.’ On the 
distinction between tmordoc. (sponte) and 
meisdprery (coactus), see Tittmann, Synon. 
Part 11. p. 3, and on the proper force of 
the pronominal Zé0s (Donalds. Cratyl. 
§ 139) when thus connected with avip, 
see notes on Ephes. v.22. -The conclud- 
ing words of the verse, va mh K.7.A., 
are most naturally connected with this 
last clause (Est.): the Adyos ‘Tov Ocov 
(the Gospel) would be evil spoken of if 
it were practically apparent that Chris- 
tian wives did not duly obey their hus- 
bands ; compare 1 Tim. vi. 1. Theodo- 
ret refers it, somewhat too narrowly, to 
the fact of women leaving their husbands 
mpoddce: SeoreBelas: the implied com- 
mand here, and the expressed command, 
Ephes. v. 22, are perfectly general and 
inclusive. 

6. vewTépous] ‘the younger men,’ in 
contrast with the mpeoBuras, ver. 1; just 
as the véa: form a contrasted class to the 
mpeoBurides. ‘There is thus no good rea- 
son for extending it, with Matth., to the 
young of both sexes. It seems to have 
been the apostle’s desire that the exhor- 
tations to the Cretan véa should be spe- 
cially administered by those of their own 
sex; contrast 1 Tim. v. 2. 
cwppovety] ‘to be sober-minded ;’ in 
this pregnant word a young man’s duty 
is simply but comprehensively enunciat- 


TITUS. 


Cuap. II. 6, 7. 


6 Tods vewtépovs WoavTWS TapaKddEL TO- 
dpovelv, 7 Tepl TravTa cEeavTov TapexXomevos 
TUTTO KadaV epywr, év TH SidacKaria apSopiav, 


ed; ovdéy yap ftw SiaKxoroy Kal xaderby 
TH jAuia TavTn yévorr av, Gs Td epi’ 
yeveodsaa Tay ndovav Tay &témwy, Chrys. : 
compare Neand, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 486 
(Bohn). The repeated occurrence of 
this word in different forms in the last 
few verses, would seem to hint that ‘im- 
moderati affectus’ were sadly prevalent 
in Crete, and that the apostle had the 
best of reasons for that statement in i..13, 
which De W. and others so improperly 
and unreasonably presume to censure. 
7. wept wayra. is not to be conuect- 
ed with cwpporeiy (* ut pudici sint in om- 
nibus,’ Jerome), but, as Syr., Vulgate, 
Chrys., and in fact all the leading ver- 
sions and expositors, with ceavr. mape- 
xduevos. It can scarcely be necessary 
to add that rdyra is neuter ; for the uses: 
of mepi, see notes on 1 Tim. i. 19. 
ceavToyv tapex | ‘exhibiting thysef;’ 
reflexive pronoun with the middle voice ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 230. In this 
use, not without precedent in earlier 
Greek, e.g. Xenophon, Cyrop. viit. 1. 
39, Plato, Legg. x. p. 890 c, emphasis'‘and 
perspicuity are gained by the special ad- 
dition of the pronoun. Here, for in- 
stance, without the pronoun the reference 
might have seemed doubtful; the rémov 
might have been referred to one of the 
vedrepo: and the use of the middle to the 
interest felt by Titus in making him so. 
In such cases care must be taken to dis- 
criminate between what is now termed 
an intensive or ‘ dynamic’ middle (Krii- 
ger, compare notes on 1 Tim. iv. 6) and 
a simple reflexive middle : in the former 
case the pronoun would seem generally 
admissible, in the latter (the present 
case), it can only legitimately appear, 
when emphasis or precision cannot be 
secured without it; see Kriiger, Sprachl; 
§ 52. 10. 10, and on the uses of mapéx. 


Cuap. II. 8, 9. 


TITUS. 


208 


, 8 , e mn > , oo ee > / > n 
cepvoTnTa, § Royo vy) aKaTayvwaTor, Wa Oo €€ évayTias evTpaTh, 


compare Kuster, de Verb. Med. § 49. 
KadA@v épy.| On this expression, which 
is perfectly comprehensive and inclusive, 
compare notes on ch. iii.8. Few will be 
disposed to agree with Calvin in his con- 
nection of these words with ev rf didac- 
kaAla. &pdsoptav| ‘uncor- 
rupiness,’ ‘ sincerity,’ scil. mapexduevos ; 
‘integritatem,’ Vulg., Clarom.: Syriac 
paraphrases. The associated word cey- 
vérns as well as what would otherwise 
be the tautologous Adyoy iyi, seem to 
refer a&pdopiay, not objectively to the 
teaching (scil. SidackaAlay adiapSopor, 
Coray), but subjectively to the teacher, 
compare 2 Cor. xi. 3; in his dacKadta 
he was to be &pSopos (Artemid. y. 95), 
in his delivery of it ceuvds: a chaste sin- 
cerity of mind was to be combined with 
a dignified ceuvdtns of manner. This 
connection is rendered perhaps still more 
probable by the reading of the text (Zach- 
mann, Tisch.) : of two similarly abstract 
subst., it would seem hardly natural to 
refer one to the teaching and the other 
to the teacher. The addition apSapctay 
(Rec., but not Rec. of Elz.) is not well 
supported, viz., only by D#E[??2|KL; 
about 30 mss.; and afew Vv. The va- 
riety of reading in this passage is con- 
siderable, see Tisch. in loc. On ceuvdrns 
see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 2, and on the prac- 
tical applications of the verse, Bp. Tay- 
lor, Serm. x. XI. 

8. Adyov by1%] ‘sound discourse,’ 
not merely in private life (‘in consuetu- 
dine quotidiana,’ Beng.), but, as the con- 
text seems to require, in the exercise of 
his public duties, more especially in 
preaching, compare 1 Tim. v.17: ‘inter 
docendum nihil aliud loquere quam quod 
sanz. fidei conveniat,’ Estius. Several 
examples of this use of bys are cited by 
‘Raphael, Annot., Vol. 11. p. 636. The 
Aéyos is moreover not only to be intrin- 
sically dyrhs, but so carefully considered 
and expressed as to be axatdyvworos, 


open to neither contempt nor animadver- 
sion ; ‘nihil dignum reprehensione dicat 
aut faciat, licet adversarii sint ad repre- 
hendum parati,’ Jerome: comp. 1 Tim. 
vi. 14. 6 ef évaytias, 
sc. xépas (Bos, Ellips. p. 562 (325), ed. 
Scheef.), if indeed it be thought necessa- 
ry to supply the ellipsis at all. The ref- 
erence is doubtful ; the ‘ adversary ’ (“he 
who riseth against us,’ Syr.) seems cer- 
tainly not 6 8:¢Bodos (Chrys.), but rather 
mas 6 éxelvw Siamovotmevos, whether the 
opposing false teacher, or the gainsaying 
heathen. On the whole, the allusion in 
ver. 5, compared with the nearly certain 
reading #uav (us Christians), makes the 
latter reference (to the heathen) the most 
plausible ; compare 1 Tim. v.14. The 
statement of Matth. that ACDEFG read 
juov is completely erroneous; all the 
above, with the exception of A, read 
nuav ; see Tisch. in loc. 

évtpamn| ‘may be shamed, —not mid- 
dle ‘sich schime, Huther, but appar- 
ently here with a purely passive sense 


v os 
comp. Syr. <6L©J, ‘ pudefiat,’ ‘eru- 


bescat’), as in 2 Thess. iii. 14; compare 
1 Cor. iv. 14, Psalm xxxiv. 26, aisxuv- 
Selnoay Kad éevtpameinoay. 


n~ 

pataAoy] ‘bad,’ Lis [odiosum] Syr.; 
John iii. 20, v. 29 (in opp. to a&yadds), 
James iii. 16;.Rom. ix. 11, 2 Cor. v. 
10, are both doubtful. This adjective, 
in its primary meaning ‘light,’ ‘blown 
about by every wind’ (Donalds. Craty/. 
§ 152), is used with a distinct moral ref- 
erence in earlier as well as later writers 
(see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. 
8. v.) ; in the latter, however, it is used 
in more frequent antithesis to ayaSdés, and 
comes to mean little less than kaxds 
(Thom. M. p. 889, ed. Bern.) or rovy- 
pos; comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 297. 

9. SovAovs x. 7. A.] ‘(Exhort) bond- 
servants to be in subjection to their own 


904 errs. Cuap. II. 9, 10. 
Ende Exav éyetv Trept judv dadrov. % Aovrous idtors Seoro- 
Tals UTOTdGCEC Nal, ev TATW EvapécTOUS Eival, fi) GVTINEYOVTAS, 
10 \ / > \ a / > } la > Sy, 2 

pn vorpifomevous, GAA Tacay TicTW évdetKvUpévors aya, 
iva Ti SiacKahiay THY TOD GwThpos udv Ocod Koopacw év 
TACLW. 


10. maécav riot] So Lachm. with ACDE; al.5; Clarom., Sangerm., al. ; Lat. 
Ff. The order is reversed by Tisch. with KL; great majority of mss. ; Copt., al. ; 
Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz), but the weight of uncial author- 
ity seems certainly in favor of the reading of the text. It may be also remarked 
that apparently in every other-instance in St. Paul’s Epistles (except Eph. iv. 19) 
where was is in connection with an abstract and anarthrous substantive, it does not 


follow but precedes the noun. 


masters.’ It does not seem necessary to 
refer this construction to ver. 1 Matth.) ; 
the infin. is dependent on mapardAet, ver. 
6, the two following verses being depend- 
ent on the participle apex. and practi- 
cally parenthetical. On the general drift 
of these exhortations to slaves, and on 
the meaning of some particular terms 
(iStos, Seomdrais), see notes and refer- 
ences on 1 Tim. vi. 1 seq. The deport- 
ment and relations to the oikodéomora of 
women and servants were practically to 
teach and edify the heathen ; ov yap amd 
Sdyuaros Séyyatra GAN amd mpdyuarwv 
kal Blov T% Sdyuata Kptvovow “ENAnves, 
Chrysost.,— who, however, in an inter- 
esting passage, speaks very despondingly 
of the moral and religious opportunities 
of SodAot. evapéatouvs| 
‘ well-pleasing ;’ a term frequently used by 
St. Paul, Rom. xii. 1, 2, xiv. 18, 2 Cor. 
v. 9, al., but in all other passages with 
relation to God or our Lord. Fritz. 
(Rom. 1. c. Vol. 111. p.31) rightly objects 
to the translation ‘ obsequiosus,’ Bretsch., 


> AN 
—comp. Syr. oped [placentes se 


preebeant], but doubtfully advocates a 
purely passive or rather neutral transla- 
tion, ‘is cui facile satisfacias,’ ‘homo 
contentus,’ similarly Jerome, ‘ compla- 
centes conditioni sux.’ This certainly 
does not seem necessary, the reference is 


more naturally to Seomdras, ‘well pleas- 
ing to them,’ z. e. ‘approved by them 
(comp. Phil. iv. 18) in all things ;’ com- 
pare Clem. Alex. Sirom. vit. 13 (83), p. 
883 (ed. Pott.), mpds tov Kiptoy eddpertos 
év Taot yévnrat, Kal mpds Toy KdoMoY emaL- 
vetés, where this passage or Rom. xiv. 
18 seems to have been in the thoughts of 
the writer. ayttAéyovtas| 
‘gainsaying, ‘contradicting,’ ‘ contradi- 
centes,’ Vulg., Clarom., and even more 


definitely Syr. areca [obsistentes], 


thwarting or setting themselves against 
their masters’ plans, wishes, or orders ; 
opp. to dmetkovtas év tots émitdymace, 
Chrys. The Auth. Vers., ‘not answer- 
ing again’ (‘non responsatores,’ Beza), 
seems too narrow ; comp. John xix. 12, 
avriAéyer TS Kaloapt, Rom. x. 21, Aadv 
Grewsodvta kal aytTiAcyovTa (LXX.), and 
in this same Epistle, ch. i. 9, where ayti- 
Aéyew probably involves some idea of 
definite opposition ; comp. Tittm. Synon. 
Td jos es 

10. voopiCopevous] ‘purloining ;’ 
Acts v. 2, 8, with amd of the thing from 
which purloined; compare Josh. vii. 1, 
2 Mace. iv. 82. This use of vorgil = 
otepav, KAémtwv (Hesych.), or with more 
accurate reflexive reference, td:omo:otue- 
vos (Suidas), requires no illustration ; 
examples, if needed, will be found in 


‘ 


Caap. II. 11, 12. 


The grace of God has ap- 
peared, and teaches us to be 
godly in this world, and to 
look forward to our Re- 
deemer’s coming. 


Wetstein. macgay wiot. €vdEetKy.) 
‘showing forth all good fidelity ;’ évdeiv. 
is only used by St. Paul, and in Heb. vi. 
10, 11; see notes on L’ph. ii. 7, where the 
word is briefly noticed, and compare Do- 
nalds. Gir. § 434, p. 447. The appended 
epithet &yaSiv can scarcely refer to the 
actions, ‘in rebus non malis,’ Bengel, 
but seems merely to specify the ‘ fidel- 
ity’ as true and genuine, opposed to a 
mere assumed, eye-serving miotis, comp. 
Eph. vi. 6. On the various meanings of 
miotis in the N. T., compare Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11.1.1, p. 91, note, and on the 
use of waaay, ‘every form of’ (comp. ev 
macw below), see notes on Lph. i. 8. 
fva.....kogu@oiy| ‘in order that 
they may adorn ;’ definite object and pur- 
pose contemplated by such conduct. The 
apostle knew well the force of practical 
teaching ; a dvvAos, €v Xpict@ piAocopar, 
to use the words of Chrysost., must in 
those days have been, even though a si- 
lent, yet a most effective preacher of the 
Gospel. The concluding words, which 
refer to God the Father (1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 
8, iv. 10, Tit. i. 3), not to God the Son, 
specify the d:5acx. as being ‘the doctrine 
of salvation,’ ‘the Gospel,’—an expres- 
sion at which De W. unnecessarily takes 
exception. 

1l. yap gives the reason for the fore- 
going practical exhortations, and seems 
immediately suggested by the last words 
of ver. 10, which, though specially refer- 
ring to slaves, may yet be extended to 
all classes. It is thus really a reference 
-to ver. 9, 10, but virtually to all that pre- 
cedes from ver. 1 sq. The saving grace 
of God had among its objects the ay:ac- 
pds of mankind ; compare Eph. i. 4, and 
the four good sermons by Beveridge, 
Serm. xc.—xcii. Vol. rv. p. 225 sq. 
(A.C. Libr.). This xdpis need not be 


PES) 


205 


2 -Ereparn yap 1) xapts Tod Ocod 4) cwr7)- 
pos Tacw avSpwross, 


12 5 , es: fa) a 
TTALOEVOQUVOE 7)(LAS, La 


limited to the incarnation (Theod., Je- 
rome, al.), though this, as the context 
and perhaps érepdvn show, is the leading 
reference ; ‘the grace of God doth not so 
bring salvation as to exclude the satisfac- . 
tion of Christ for our sins,’ Beveridge, 
lc. p. 229. "Empatvew (ch. iii. 4, Luke 
i. 79) and émpdyeia are normal words in 
connection with our Lord’s first or sec- 
ond advent (Waterl. Serm. vi. (Moyer’s 
Lect.) Vol. 11. p. 184), possibly with a 
metaphorical reference, compare Acts 
xxvii. 20; the dogmatical reference in- 
volyed in the compound, tva thy tywdev 
Umapiw unvion (Zonaras, Ler. Vol. 1. p. 
831), seems clearly indemonstrable. 

) owthpros «.7.A.] ‘the saving (grace) 
to all men,’ ‘that grace of God whereby 
alone it is possible for mankind to be 
saved, Beveridge, 1. c. p. 229. The 
reading is doubtful: Lachm., with AC!D', 
rejects the article, Tisch., with C?D°D?E 
KL, retains it, and apparently rightly. 
If the article were wanting, we should 
have a further predication, scil. ‘and it 
is a saving grace to all men’ (Donalds. 
Gr. § 400), which would subjoin a secon- 
dary reference that would mar the sim- 
plicity of the context, maSevouca, clearly 
involving the principal thought. Huther, 
in contending for the omission of the art. 
on the same grounds, does not appear to 
have been fully aware of the nature and 
foree of these predicates. In either case, 
on account of the following 7jmas, the da- 
tive maow avSp. is most naturally and 
plausibly appended to cwrnhpios ; joined 
with éred., it would be, as Wiesinger 
remarks, aimless and obstructive. 

12. rardevovaa| ‘disciplining us.’ 
The proper force of this word in the 
N. T., ‘ per molestias erudire’ (see notes 
on Eph. vi. 4, Trench, Synon. § 32), 
preserved in the ‘corripiens’ of Clarom., 


206 


TITUS. 


Cuap. II. 12. 


> / X Ds VE, \ \ \ ’ , , 
dpyncapevot Ti acéBevav Kal Tas KoopLKAS eT’SUpiaS cappoves 


must not here be lost sight of or (as in 
Bloomf.) obscured. Grace exercises its 
discipline on us (1 Cor. xi. 32, Heb. xii. 
6) before its benefits can be fully felt or 
thankfully acknowledged : the heart must 
be rectified and the affections chastened 
before sanctifying grace can have its full 
issues; compare (on the work of grace) 
the excellent sermon of Waterland, Serm. 
XVI. Vol. v. p. 688. 

dva «.7.A.] ‘tothe intent that ;’ not 
merely the substance (De W., Huther.) 
but the direct object of the madeia. De 
Wette considers va with the subjunct. as 
here only tantamount to an infin.; this 
is grammatically admissible after verbs 
of ‘command,’ ‘entreaty,’ al. (see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 44. 8, compare notes on Eph. 
i. 17), but doubtful after a verb so full of 
meaning as madedev. The opinion of 
Chrys. seems definite with regard to iva, 
but he is apparently inclined to join it 
with the finite verb, 7ASev 6 Xp. iva apvy- 
océueda Thy acéBeay: this does not ap- 
pear admissible. 

&pynodpmevorl ‘having denied ;’ not, 
‘denying,’ Alf.,— which, though gram- 
matically defensible, seems to obscure 
that formal renunciation of dacéBeav 
x. T. A. which was characteristic of the 
Christian profession, and to which the 
apostle seems here to allude. On the 
use of the verb, compare notes on ch. i. 
16. The participle, as Wiesinger re- 
marks, states on the negative side, the 
purpose of the maidefa, which is further 
expressed on the positive in cwpp. (how- 
pev. ‘AgéBeta, here not ciSwAodartpela 
Kal T& movnpa Sdyuata, Theophyl., but 
‘practical impiety’ (‘ whatsoever is of- 
fensive or dishonorable to God,’ Bever- 
idge, Serm. xc. Vol. Iv. p. 239 sq.), is 
the exact antithesis to evoéBeia, on which 
latter word see notes on 1 Tin. ii. 2. 
Tas Koop. ema] ‘the lusts of the 
world,’ ‘allinordinate desives of the things 


of this world,’ Beveridge, /. ¢., compare 
1 John ii. 16 ; dca pbs tov wapdvta Blov 
hut xpnouever, Koomial eiow émidvplat, 
ndvta boa ev TH TapovTt Biw ovyKaradd- 
erat Kook) eotw émd., Chrysost. The 
adjective cogpixds is only a 8s Aéyou. in 
the N. T., here and (in a different sense) 
Heb. ix. 1, being commonly replaced in 
such combinations as the present by 
words or expressions of a more distinct 
ethical force, Gal. v. 16, Ephes. ii. 3, 1 
Pet. ii. 11, 2 Pet. ii. 10, al. It is here 
probably used in preference to capkucds 
(1 Pet. J. c.), as more general and inclu- 
sive, and as enhancing the extent of the 
abnegation: all émSvula are here in- 
cluded, which, in a word, eis rodrov pé- 
vov Tov Kécmov yevvavrTat Kal OxL eis BA- 
doy, Coray ; comp. especially 1 John ii. 
15. In later writers the moral reference 
is very decided ; xoopuxots, Tovs eis THY 
viv ermioyras Kal Tas capKiKkas emiduulas, 
Clem. Alexand. Strom. 11. 9. 41, Vol. 1. 
p- 430 (ed. Pott.). Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 
11. p. 147, On the various meanings of 
xdéomos, compare notes on Gal. iy. 8. 
cwppdves K.7.A.] ‘ soberly, righteous- 
ly, and godly.’ The meanings assigned 
to cwpp. (notes on 1 Tim. ii. 9), Sixatws 
(compare verse 5), and edoeBas must 
not be too much narrowed, still in a 
general way they may be considered as 
placing Christian duties under three as- 
pects, to ourselves, to others, and to 
God; compare Beveridge, Serm. xc1. 
Vol. rv. p. 253. The terms, indeed, are 
all general and comprehensive,— dikaios, 
for example (‘qui jus fasque servat,’ 
Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 21), includes more 
than duty to others, but the order, as 
well as the meanings, alike hint that this 
distinction is not to be wholly ignored ; 
compare Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 639, 
Storr, Opuse. Vol. 1. p. 197 sq. 

év7@ viv ai@vi] ‘in the present 
world,’ ‘this present course of things’ On 


Cuar. IL. 18. 


1 Sixaiws Kat evoeBOs Syowpev ev TO VoV ald 
Kal dixaias s Howope ev TO vov aidvi, 


DPITUS. . 


207 


18 


™ poadexo- 


pevos THY pakapiay édrida Kal ériddveray Ths SoEns Tod peyddou 


the meaning of aidév, see notes on Eph. 
ii. 2, comp. also notes on 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
13. rpoodexdpmevort K.7.A. | ‘looking 
for the blessed hope and manifestation of 
the glory ;? comp. Acts xxiv. 15, Gal. v. 
5, €Amida aexdex., where sec notes. In 
this expression, which, on account of the 
close union of éAmida with éemipdveiay, is 
slightly different to Gal. /.¢., éAmls is 
still not purely objective, sc. the ‘ res spe- 
rata,’ 7d éAmi¢éuevov (Huth., al.), but is 
only contemplated under objective as- 
pects (‘objectivirt’), our hope being con- 
sidered as something definite and substan- 
tive, compare Col. i. 5, éAmiia thy dro- 
Kelwevny év Tois odpavors, sce notes in loc., 
and notes on Hph.i. 18. The nature of 
the hope is more fully defined by the 
gen. ddéns with which it is associated : 
see below. Theodoret seems to regard 
the whole expression as a mere ev did 
dvoiv, scil., ris évddtou mapovotas avTou 
Thy éAmida: this is not satisfactory ; 
though the meaning may sometimes be 
practically not very different, yet such 
systems of interpretation are at best only 
evasive and precarious; see Fritzsche’s 
careful Excursus, in his Comm. on Matth. 
p. 853 sq. The different objects of éa- 
mls, e.g. ddkns, Sixaocbvyns, avartdcews 
x. T. X., are grouped together by Reuss, 
Theol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 221. 
tas 5déns is thus certainly not to be 
explained away as a mere epithet, ‘glo- 
rious appearing,’ Auth. Vers., Scholef., 
but is a true and proper genitive, see 
notes on Eph. i. 6: there is a twofold 
émipdvera, the one an ém. Tis xapiros, 
ver. 11, the other an ém. rijs 5dins, see 
Beveridge, Serm. xc11. Vol. 1v. p. 271 
(A.-C. Libr.). It is also plainly depend- 
‘ent on éAm/da, as well as on em. (De W. 
Wiesinger), the two substantives being 
‘closely united, and under the vinculum 


of a common article; see Winer, Gr. § 
s 


19.4.d,p.116. It is singular that Scho- 
lef. Hints, p. 126 (ed. 3), should not have 
given this interpretation more promi- 
nence. Tov mMeydAou 
k. T. A.J] ‘of our great God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ ;’ wéyay 5& Ocdy dvduacev 
to Xpiotdy, Theod., sim. Chrys. It 
must be candidly avowed that it is very 
doubtful whether on the grammatical 
principle last alluded to the interpreta- 
tion of this passage can be fully settled ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 118, and com- 
pare notes on Eph. v.5. There is a pre- 
sumption in favor of the adopted inter- 
pretation, but, on account of the (defin- 
ing) genitive 7uav { Winer, p. 114), noth- 
ing more: compare Alford in loc , who, 
it may be observed, by an oversight has 
cited this note as advocating the view to 
which it is opposed. When, however, 
we turn to exegetical considerations, and 
remember (a) that ém@dvei is a term 
specially and peculiarly applied to the 
Son, and never to the Father, see esp. 
Waterland, Serm. v1. (Moyer’s Lect.) 
Vol. 11. p. 134, comp. Beveridge, Serm. 
xcit. Vol. rv. p. 268, (b) that the im- 
mediate context so especially relates to 
our Lord ; (c) that the following mention 
of Christ’s giving Himself up for us,— 
of His abasement, does fairly account for 
St. Paul’s ascription of a title, otherwise 
unusual, that specially and antithetically 
marks His glory ; (d) that weydAov would 
seem uncalled for if applied to the Father, 
see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 4, p. 310, Hof- 
mann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 127 ; and (e) 
lastly, observe that apparently two of the 
ante-Nicene (Clem. Alexand. Protrept. § 
8, Vol. 1. p. 7, ed. Pott., and Hyppoly- 
tus, quoted by Wordsw.) and the great 
bulk of post-Nicene writers (see Middle- 
ton, Gr. Art. p. 393, ed. Rose, Wordsw., 
Six Letters, p. 67 sq.) concurred in this 
interpretation,— when we candidly weigh 


208 


Ocod Kai cotipos hav “Incod Xpictod, 


TITUS. 


Cuap. II. 14. 


14 O59 GOwmKEV EaUTOV 


¢ \ “s lal vA , e lal > ‘ 4 > J 
UTép TLV, Wa AVTPWONTAaL Nuas aTTO TATNS avoplas Kal KaSa- 


all this evidence, it does indeed seem 
difficult to resist the conviction that our 
blessed Lord is here said to be our péyas 
@cés, and that this text is a direct, definite, 
and even studied declaration of the divin- 
ity of the Eternal Son. For further pa- 
tristic citations, see the good note of 
Wordsworth in loc. It ought not 
to be suppressed that some of the best 
Vv., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. (not how- 
ever ZEth.), and some Fathers of unques- 
tioned orthodoxy adopted the other in- 
terpretation; in proof of which latter as- 
sertion, Reuss refers to Ulrich, Num 
Christus in etc. Deus appellatur, Tig. 1837, 
—a treatise, however, which the present 
editor has not seen. The note of De W., 
in keeping in the background the pal- 
mary argument (a), scarcely reflects his 
usual candor; the true rendering of the 
clause really turns more upon exegesis 
than upon grammar, and this the student 
should not fail clearly to bear in mind. 
14. 6s Z5wxKev| ‘who gave Himself,’ 
Gal. i. 4, Eph. v. 25; expansion of the 
preceding word owrfpos, with a distinct 
retrospective reference to 4 xdpis | TwTh- 
The forcible éavrdy ‘ Him- 
self, His whole self, the greatest gift ever 
given,’ must not be overlooked ; comp. 
Beveridge, Serm. xc111. Vol. rv. p. 285. 
bmwép jue] ‘for us” On the mean- 
ing of this expression, which must not 
be here too hastily asserted as equiva- 
lent to dyt) fav (Beveridge, /. c.), see 
notes on Gal. iii. 13. 
Autpdontat| ‘ransom,’ ‘ pay for us a 
Avrpoy,’ that Adtpov being his precious 
blood; see notes on Eph. i. 7, and comp. 
Matth. xx. 28, Mark x. 45. Not only 
does our Lord’s death involve our recon- 
ciliation and our justification, but, what 
is now too often lost sight of, our ransom- 
ing and redemption (Beveridge, Serm. xc. 
Vol. rv. p. 230), whether, as here, from 


ptos, ver. 11. 


the bondage, or, as elsewhere, from the 
penalties of dvouia: see Reuss, Théol. 
Chrét. rv. 17, Vol. 11. p. 182 sq., who, 
with some deductions, has expressed 
himself clearly and satisfactorily. 
a&voptas] ‘iniquity;’ properly ‘ law- 
lessness,’ the state of moral license (éka- 
Sapoia Kal dvouta, Rom. vi. 19) which 
either knows not or regards not law, and 
in which the essence of sin abides, 1 John 
iii. 4; ‘in dvoulg cogitatur potissimum 
legem non servari, sive quod ignota sit 
lex, sive quod consulto violetur,’ Titt- 
mann, Synon. 1. p. 48, where a distine- 
tion between dvouia and the more inclu- 
sive adixia (see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 19) is 
stated and substantiated. t 
KaSaplon x.7-A.] ‘purify unto Him- 
self a peculiar people ;’ affirmative state- 
ment (according to St. Paul’s habit) and 
expansion of what has been just express- 
ed negatively. The tacit connection of 
évoula and axaSapota (see last note) ren- 
ders kaSapi(w very pertinent and appro- 
priate. It does not seem necessary with 
Syr. (here incorrectly translated by Eth- 
eridge), De W., Wiesing., al., to supply 
quads and understand Aady as an accus. 
‘of the predicate,’ scil., ‘for a peculiar 
people:’ the Greek commentt. (see esp. 
Theod.) all seem clearly to regard it a 
plain accus. objecti ; so Vulg., Clarom., 
and Ath. The Coptic Version, on the 
contrary, distinctly advocates the ‘ predi- 
cative’ accusative. 

meptovaotov| ‘peculiar, Auth. Ver., 
vixetov, Theod.; very doubtfully inter- 


Yi ght F 
preted by Syr. 12 gaa LSS [popu- 
lum novum], and but little better by 
Vulg., ‘acceptabilem,’ and Chrys. éte:- 
Aeyuévay, both of which seem to recede 
too far from the primary meaning. The 
most satisfactory commentary on this 
word (dr. Aeydu. in N. T.) is supplied by 


Caar. It; 5 —TIII. 1. 


/ © lal NX 4 \ rn xy 
pion €avt@ Aaov TeEpLovotov, CyrwT)VY KAD Epyov. 


EES. 


209 


5 Tatra 


d in \ f er Ns 3k \ y! ? a / 
ANEL KAL TAPAKANEL KAL EEYXE META TaoNS ETTLTAYHS pndels cov 


/ 
TrepippoverTo. 


Teach men to be obedient ; 
we were once the contrary, 


III. *Yrropipynoxe adtods apyais efovolass 


but have been saved and regenerated through God’s mercy in Jesus Christ. 


1 Pet. ii. 9, Aads eis wepurolnow, compar- 
ed with the mb25 py of the Old Test., 
translated Aady’ eptodatov, Deut. vii. 6, 
comp. Exod. xix. 5, al.; see notes on 
Ephes.i.14. It would thus seem that 
the primary meaning, ‘what remains 
over and above to’ (comp. Bretschneider 
Lex.,— a little too coarsely expressed by 
the ‘populum abundantem’ of the Cla- 
rom.,—has passed, by an _ intelligible 
gradation into that of mepimoetdv, He- 
sych., ¢yxrntov, Suid., and thence, with 
a little further restriction, oiefoy; the 
connection of thought being that indi- 
cated by the Steph. (in Thesaur. s. v.), 
“qua supersunt a nobis reconduntur.’ 
On the derivation of this word, see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 16. 3, p. 88, and on the gen- 
eral meaning, see Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. 
Vol. 11. p. 678, and Hammond in loc. 
In this clause the sanctifying, as in the 
former the redeeming, purpose of the 
atoning death of Christ comes mainly 
into prominence; see Hammond, ‘Pract. 
Catech. 1. 2, p. 24 (A.-C. Libr.). 
Cndawthv Kkarav Epywr] ‘zealous of 
good works ;’ the gen. objecti specifying 
the objects about which the ¢jAos was 
displayed ; compare Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 
3; 1 Cor. xiv. 12, Gal. i. 14. 

15. ratdtTa x. 7.A.] Retrospective 
exhortation (ver. 1), serving as an easy 
conclusion to the present, and a prepara- 
tion for a new portion of the Epistle. 
Tadra may be united with mapaxdéAe: (com- 
pare 1 Tim. vi. 2), but on account of the 
following gAeyxe is more naturally at- 
tached only to AdAe; Titus is, however, 
not to stop with Aadciv, he is to exhort 
the faithful, and reprove the negligent and 

-wayward. On the practical duties of 


27 


Titus’s office, compare South, Serm. v. 
Vol. 1. p. 76 (Teg). 

MeTa Taons émitayAs] ‘with all 
(every exhibition of ) authority; wetd ad- 
Sevtias Kal weTa eEovoias, Chrysost., who 
also remarks on the inclusive mdoys. 
The term émrayy occurs 1 Tim. i. 1, 
Tit. i. 3, in the more speeific sense of 
‘commandment ;’ in the N. T. it is only 
used by St. Paul, viz., Rom. xvi. 26, 1 
Cor. vii. 6, 25, and 2 Cor. viii. 8. The 
presen ; clause is probably only to be con- 
nected with the last verb (as Chrysost. 
and Theoph.), thus far corresponding to 
amrotéuws, chap. i. 13. 

gov mweptppovetta| ‘despise thee, 
‘slight thee ;’ not ‘ give no one just cause 
to do so,’ Bloomf. (comp. Jerome), a 
meaning which is here purely imported ; 
contrast 1 Tim. iv. 11, where the context 
supplies the thought. All the apostle 
says here is, as Hammond rightly para- 
phrases, ‘ permit not thy admonitions to 
be set at nought,’ ‘speak and act with 
vigor ;’ the Cretan character most prob- 
ably required it. The verb mepipp. is an 
dr. Aeydu. in the N. T., probably some- 
wnat milder (compare Thucyd. 1. 25) 
than the more usual katappovety. The 
ethical distinction urged by Jerome, that 
Tepipp. Means an improper, while katapp. 
may mean a proper contempt (e. g. of suf- 
ferings, etc.), does not seem tenable. 


Cuapter III. 1. brcpiuvnorel 
‘put in mind,’ ‘admone,’ Vulg., Clarom. 
It is almost perverse in the opponents of 
the genuineness of these Ep. to call atten- 
tion to this word ; it occurs several times 
in the N. T., and though not elsewhere 
in St. Paul’s Ep., except.in 2 Tim. ii.14, 

4 


ae 


210 


BIPUS. 


Cuap. III. 1-3. 


c , a \ a ” ] \ € / - 
UmroTdcceo Sal, TEeSapyYelv, Tpos TAY Epyov ayaov ETOLmoUS Elvat, 


2 be Bx a b) 4 = “2 > lal lal > 5 / 
PnocVa acpnuety, ALAXOUS ELVAL, ETTLELKELS, TTADAV EVOELKVUJLE- 


vous mpaitnta mpos mwdavtas avSpwrrous. 


is nearly the only word which suitably 
expresses this peculiar part of the teach- 
er’s office : in 1 Cor. iv. 17, another com- 
pound, dvauyhoe, is properly used as 
implying that previous instructions had 
been forgotten ; see Meyer zn loc. 

apxats ékouclars] ‘to powers, au- 
thorities, Luke xii. 11: general, includ- 
ing all constituted governors, Roman and 
others. It is far from improbable that 
there is here an allusion to an insubordi- 
nate spirit which might have been show- 
ing itself not merely among the Cretan 
Jews (Conyb.), but the Cretans general- 
ly (Wetst.). They had been little more 
than 125 years under Roman rule (Me- 
tellus subjugated Crete B.c. 67), their 
previous institutions had been of a dem- 
ocratic tone (Syuoxpatinny exer diddeow, 
Polyb. Hist. vi. 46.4), and their own 
predatory and seditious character was 
only too marked; otdoeor kal pdvors Kad 
moAeuois eupuAtois avactpepomevous, Po- 
lyb.. v1.46. 9; see Meursius, Creta, Iv. 8, 
p. 226. This, perhaps, may be rendered 
further plausible by the use of reiSapxet 
(‘coactus obsequi’) as well as émordo- 
ceodat (‘lubens et sponte submittere’), 
see Tittm. Synon. 11. p. 3, and compare 


Syr., which by posde| [subditus 
i 


est = med.| and “Sow = [andivit = 


iror.| seems to observe a similar distine- 
tion: contr. Vulg., Clarom. When we- 
Sapx. stands alone, this meaning must 
not be too strongly pressed, comp. Acts 
v. 32, xxvii. 21; the idea of obeying a 
superior power, seems, however, never 
wholly lost; compare Ammonius, de 
Vocab. Diff. p. 121. The omission 
of «ai is justified by preponderant uncial 
authority, ACD'‘E!FG, al., and is right- 
ly adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, 


3 Fev yap Tote Kal 


and the majority of recent expositors. 
metSapkety may be connected with 
apxais, Theodoret, Huth., al., but, on 
account of the preceding apxats, seems 
more naturally taken absolutely ; so Vul- 
gate, Syr. (appy.), and most modern 
commentators. Coray extends the ref- 
erence to Thy avtod eis éauTdoy broTayny 
(comp. Aristot. Nic. Eth. x. 9), but this 
is scarcely in harmony with the immedi- 
ate context. a‘ 

2, undéva BrAac®.] ‘to speak evil of 
no man,’ pndéva aryopevew Karas, Theo- 
doret; extension of the previous injunc- 
tions: not only rulers, but all men are to 
be treated with consideration, both in 
word and deed. On BaAaop. see notes on 
1 Tim. i. 13, and on the practical appli- 
cations and necessary limitations of the 
precept, the exhaustive sermon of Bar- 
row, Serm. xvi. Vol. I. p. 447 sq. 
&udxous...émrerkets| ‘not conten- 
tious, forbearing ;’ on the distinction be- 
tween these two words, see notes on 1 
Tim. iii. 8. The émeiuhs must have 
been, it is to be feared, a somewhat ex- 
ceptional character in Crete, where an 
Zuputos mAcovetia, exhibited in outward 
acts of aggression, ka) idi@ Kal Kara Kol- 
vév (Polyb. v1. 46. 9), is described as one 
of the prevailing and dominant vices. 
mpaitnr) ‘meekness,’ a virtue of the 
inner spirit, very insufficiently represent- 


o > = 
ed by the Syr. {2QSae25 [benigni- 


tas]; see notes on Eph. iv. 2, Gal. v. 23, 
and Trench, Synon. § 42. On évdey. 
sce notes on Eph. ii. 7, and on the practi- 
cal doctrine of universal benevolence in- 
volved in mdvras av&p. (kal “Iovdatous rat 
“EAAnvas, woXSnpovs Ka) movnpovs, Chrys.), 
Waterl. Serm. 11. § 1, Vol. v. p. 438. 

3. fiwev yap] ‘ For we wERe 3” juev 
put forward emphatically, and forming a 


Cuar. IIL. 3, 4. 


Titys. 


211 


Hels AVONTOL, amrelEls, TAAV@pEVvoL, SovAEVoVTES emiSuplats Kab 


Hoovais Trovcinats, év Kakla Kal PSdove Sudyovtes, eTUyNToL, uicodv- 
Tes GANpAous' 4 OTe OE) XpNOTOTHS Kal 7) pitavSporrla errepavyn 


sharp contrast to the better present (ver. 
4). The yap supplies a reason for the 
foregoing command, especially for its 
concluding words: be meek and forbear- 
ing to others, for we once equally need- 
ed mercy and forbearance ourselves, and 
(ver. 4) have now experienced it. ‘Hyets, 
as the context shows (comp. ver. 5), im- 
plies the apostle and all believers ; comp. 
Eph. ii. 3, where the reference is equally 
comprehensive. avdnrot| 
‘ foolish ;’ see notes on Gal. iii. 1. The 
meaning is said to be here somewhat 
more specific, nearly approaching to éc- 
Kotiomevot TH Stavolg, Eph. iv. 18 (De 
W., Huth.); this, however, is not in- 
volved in the word itself (Hesych. avdn- 
Tos’ pwpds, NAi0s, &ovveTos), but only 
reflected on it from the context. 
mArAavaemevor| ‘going astray ;’ ‘ erran- 
tes,’ Vule, Claromanus, Syr. ; not ‘led 
astray,’ Conyb., Alf. The associated 
participles, as well as the not uncommon 
use of tAavaoSa in a similar sense (sim- 
ply Matth. xviii. 12, 1 Pet. ii. 25, al. ; 
metaphorically Heb. v. 2, James v. 19), 
seem in favor of the neutral meaning. 
In 2 Tim. iii. 13, the antithesis suggests 
the passive meaning. 

Hdovats] ‘pleasures ;’ a word not else- 
where used by St. Paul (a fact not lost 
sight of by De Wette), and only some- 
what sparingly in the N. T. (see Luke 
viii. 14, James iv. 1, 3, 2 Pet. ii. 13), but 
possibly suggested here by the notorious 
character in that respect of those indi- 
rectly alluded to; compare Chrys. zn doc. 
Jerome (1) illustrates the clause by ref- 
erences to St. Paul ‘in his Saulship’ 
(to use Hammond’s language, Sermon 


? 


xxx.): the vices enumerated were, how-., 


ever, far more probably those of the peo- 
ple with whom, for the time being, the 
apostle is grouping himself. On the 


derivation of rota. (only in Past. Epp.), 
see notes on 1 Zim. iii. 6. 

’ evil habit of the mind 
as contrasted with moynpia, which rather 
points to the manifestation of it; see 
notes on Hph. iv. 31 (Transl.), Trench, 
Synon. § 11. It is surely very hasty in 
Huther to assert that in 1 Cor. y. 8 it is 
merely synonymous with movnpia; see 
Taylor, on Repent. 1v. 1, who, however, 
is too narrow in his interpretation of 
kakia, though correct in that of movnpla. 
The verb didyew is a dls Acydu., here and 
(with Biov) 1 Tim. ii. 2. 

atuyntol| ‘hateful, wionrot, Hesych., 
‘ odibiles,’ Vulg.: it forms, as Wiesing. 
observes, a species of antithesis to picovy- 
tes GAANAous. Their conduct was such 
as to awaken hatred in others. 

4. xpnortdt7s| ‘the kindness, ‘ be- 
nignity, *benignitas,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
se. ‘que in dandis beneficiis cernitur,’ 
Fritz. Rom. 11. 4, Vol. 1. p. 98; used in 
ref. to God, Rom. ii. 4, xi. 22, Eph. ii. 7 
(comp. Clem. Rom. Epist. 1. 9, Epist. ad 
Diogn. § 9); in reference to man 2 Cor. 
vi. 6, Gal. v. 22, Col. iii. 12. See notes 
on Gal. l.c., where it is distinguished 
from dyaSwotvn. 

h ptAavSpwrlal ‘the love,” or more 
exactly ‘ the love towards men,’ Alf., ‘hu- 
manitas,’ Vulg.; used only again, in ref. 
to men, Acts xxviii. 2; compare Philo, 
Leg. ad Cai.§ 10, Volume 11. p. 556 
(Mang.),— where both words are associ- 
ated, Raphel in /oc., and for the general 
sentiment, John iii. 16. The article is 
repeated with each subst. to give promi- 
nence to each attribute, Green, Gram. p. 
213. On émepdvy, compare notes on ch. 
ii. 11, and on swrijpos @eov, see notes on 
1 Tim. i. 1. and Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 
396, who remarks that it may be ques- 
tioned whether in this place, as well as 


: , 
kaktla] ‘malice; 


TITUS. Cuapr. III. 5. 


212 


n na ¢e a a > ? ” [al > f 2 
Tod caThpos Hyudv Ocod, 5 ove é& epywv tov ev Sikalootvn ov 
érroujoapev Hueis, GANA KaTa TO avTod Eheos Ecwoev Huds Sia 


5. av erorhoopev] So Tisch. with C2D°EKL; nearly all mss.; Ath., Chrysost., 
Theod., al. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz); and perhaps rightly, as the law of attraction 
seems so very regularly preserved in the N. Test. Lachmann reads & émorfo. with 
AC!DIFG ; al.; Clem., al. (Huther, Alf.),—.a reading that is not hastily to be re- 
jected, but still apparently less probable than the former. Huther urges the proba- 
bility of a correction from the acc. to the gen., but it is doubtful whether transcrib- 
ers were so keenly alive to the prevailing coincidence of the N. T. in this respect 
with classical Greek as to have made the change from the intelligible accusative. 
Winer (Gr. § 24. 1, p. 147) cites as similar violations of the ordinary rule, John iv. 
50, vii. 39, Acts vii. 16; the first and second passages have fair critical support for 
the acc., the third, however, scarcely any. We retain then the reading of Tischend. 


ch. i. 8, ii. 10, 1 Tim. ii. 2, the owrnp 
@eds be not Christ, though usually refer- 
red to the Father. In the present verse 
this surely cannot be the case (see ver. 6, 
and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2.4, p.310), 
still we seem bound to mark in trans- 
lation the different collocation of the 
words. 

5. obKk @& Epywy] ‘not by works,’ 
i.e. in consequence of works; see notes 
on Gal. ii. 16, where this and other uses 
of é« are compared and investigated. 
The negative is emphatic, and, as Ben- 
gel observes, refers to the whole sentence ; 
ovre erovijcauev epya Sixaooiyyns, ove 
ecdSqnuev ee ToUTwY, GAAG TH TAY 7 Gya- 
&édrns abtod émolnoe, Theophyl. The 
works are further defined as T& ev dixat- 
ootvn, works done in a sphere or element 
of Sixatoctvn, in the state of a Sixaios ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 348. 
émotjoamev Hmerts| ‘wedid:’ nueis 
emphatic; the pronoun being added to 
make the contrast, with adtov éAeos still 
more clear and forcible. In the follow- 
ing clause «ar& denotes the indirect rea- 
son that an agreement with a norma sug- 
gests «and involves, =‘ in consequence 
of, ‘qui est misericordid,’ Fritz. Rom. 
11. 4, Vol. 1. p. 99; so Acts iii. 17, kara 
&yvoiav, 1 Pet. i. 3, kara 7d €Aeos, comp. 
Phil. ii. 8, see Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 358. 


The transition from the regular meaning 
of the ‘model’ to that of the ‘ course of 
things in accordance with it,’ is suffi- 
ciently easy and intelligible; compare 
Phil. ii. 3 (where kar’ epider stands in 
a kind of parallelism to the dative, 77 
Tamewvoppootyy), and still more definitely 
Arrian, Alex..1. 99 (cited by Winer), 
kar’ €xSos Td Tdpov paddov 2 pidla TH 
*AActay5pov: see also Bernhardy, Synt., 
v. 20. b, p. 240. Huther on 1 Pet. i. 2 
draws a distinction between this use of 
kara& and é, but a bare remembrance of 
the primary meanings of the two prepp., 
origin (immediate) and model, will render 
such distinctions almost self-evident. 

tcwoev nmas| ‘saved us,’ ‘ put us into 
a state of salvation,’ Hammond ; see es- 
pecially 1 Pet. iii. 21, and compare Tay- 
lor, Life of Christ, 1.§ 9, Disc. v1. 29. 
In this important dogmatical statement 
many apparent difficulties will complete- 
ly vanish if we remember (1) that no 
mention is here made of the subjective 
conditions on man’s side (8:a Tijs tlorews, 
Eph. ii. 8, compare 1 Pet. . c.), because 
the object of the whole passage is to en- 
hance the description of the saving mer- 
cy of God, see Wiesing. in loc. ; (2) that 
St. Paul speaks of baptism on the suppo- 
sition that it was no mere observance, 
but that it was a sacrament in which all 


Cuap. III. 5. 


cb id A Og 


213 


AouTpod Tadvyyeverias Kal avakaweocews Tvevpatos ‘Aviov, 


that was inward properly and completely 
accompanied all that was outward: he 
thus can say in the fullest sense of the 
words, that it was a Aodrpoy madryyev- 
egias, as he had also said, Gal. iii. 27, 
that as many as were baptized into 
Christ, Xpicrby évedicacde, definitely 
put Him on, entered into vital union 
with Him,—a blessed state, which as it 
involved remission of sins, and a certain 
title, for the time being, to resurrection 
and salvation, so, if abided in, most sure- 
ly leads to final cwrnpia ; see Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 495 (Bohn), and esp. 
the bricf but most perspicuous remarks 
of Waterland ELuchar. vit. 3, Vol. 1v. p. 
578 (compare 7b. 1x. 3, p. 645), compar- 
ed with the fuller statements of Taylor, 
Life of Christ 1.9, Dise. v1.14. sq. On 
the meaning of odé(w, compare (with cau- 
tion) Green, Gramm. p. 318, but observe 
that ‘to embrace the Gospel’ (p. 317) 
falls short of the plain and proper mean- 
ing of cd (ev (‘salvum facere’), which 
even with ref. to present time can never 
imply less than ‘to place in a state of 
salvation ;’ comp. Beveridge, Church. 
Cat. qu. 4, and notes on Eph. ii. 8. 

51a Aovtpod mariyy.| ‘by means of 
the laver of regeneration,’ ‘per lavacrum 
regenerationis,’ Vulg., Claroman.; the 
Aoutp. madryy. is the ‘causa medians’ of 
the saving grace of Christ, it is ‘a means 
whereby we receive the same, and a 
pledge to assure us thereof ;’ ‘ partam a 
Christo salutem Baptismus nobis obsig- 
nat,’ Calvin. Less ‘than this cannot be 
said by any candid interpreter. The 
gen. madryy. apparently marks the attri- 
bute or inseparable accompaniments of 
the Aourpdy, thus falling under the gen- 
eral head of the possessive gen., Scheuerl. 
Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115: for examples in 
the N. T. of this sort of gen. of ‘inner 
reference,’ see especially the collection in 
Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B, p. 169. As for 


any unexegetical attempts (Matth., al.) 
to explain away the plain force and lexical 
meaning of Aourpéy (see notes on Eph. v. 
26), it may be enough to say, in the 
words of Hooker on this subject, that 
‘where a literal construction will stand, 
the farthest from the letter is commonly 
the worst,’ Eccl. Pol. v. 59. 2; see John 
ili. 5, the reff. in Waterland, Works, Vol. 
Iv. p. 428, and compare the fair com- 
ments of Hofmann, Weiss. u. rf. 11. p. 
233 sq.. and Schriftb. 11. 2, p. 170 sq. 
On the true meaning of maavyyeveota(Syr. 


: a 2) v 
ined 99 —_? |paov [partus qui 
de principio, de novo] ; ov« érecxebacev 
NGS GAN BvwSev kateockevacev, Chrys.), 
see the able treatise on this text by Wa- 
terland, Works, Vol. 1v. p. 427 sq., a 
tract which, though extending only to 
thirty pages, will be found to include and 
to supersede much that has been written 
on this subject: Bethell on Regen. (ed. 
4) and the very good note of Words- 
worth in loc. may also be profitably con- 
sulted. Kal avakacv. 
k.T.A.] and renewing of the Holy Spirit,’ 
zt. e. ‘by the Holy Spirit,’ the second 
gen. being that of the agent, more deti- 
nitely expressed by D1IE1FG, al., guano. 
dia mv. Gy., Clarom. (‘renoy. per Sy. 
sanctum’), and some Latin Ff.: comp. 
notes on Eph. iv. 23. The construction 
of the first gen. dvaxaw. is somewhat 
doubtful. It may be regarded either (a) 
as dependent on the preceding did, as in 
Syr., Jerome (‘ per renovationem’), al. ; 
see John iii. 5, and compare Blunt, Lect. 
on Par. Priest, p. 56; or (b) as depend- 
ent on Aovtpod, Vulg., Clarom., Copt., 
Arm., th.-Platt, none of which repeat 
the prep. before avaraty. ; see Waterland, 
Regen. Vol. 1v. p. 428, who briefly no- 
tices and removes the objection (compare 
Alf.) founded on the inclusive character 
that will thus be assigned to Baptism. 


214 


TAs . 


Cuap. III. 6, 7. 


6 op é&éyeey Ef Huds TAovalws dia Inood Xpiotod Tod cwthpos 
x my nood Xp ‘ip 
qpav, " iva Sica Sévtes TH éxelvou yapiTe KANpoVvopoL yevnS@peEv 


Kat éXrrida Cwijs aiwviov. 


On the whole the latter seems most sim- 
ple and - satisfactory : 
must not, however, be considered as 
merely explanatory of maAryyeveoias (De 

Wette, Huther), but as co-ordinate with 
‘it, madryy. and évakawy. (only here and 
Rom. xii. 2) ‘being nearly allied in end 
use, of one and the same original, often 
going together, and perfective of each 
other,’ Waterland, J. c. p. 428; see Hof- 
mann, Schriftb. 11.2, p.171. The exact 
genitival relation madvyy. and avakay. 
cannot be very certainly or very confi- 
dently defined. The gen. is most proba- 
bly an obscured gen. of the content, rep- 
resenting that which the Aourpdy involves, 
comprises, brings with it, and of which 
it is the ordinary and appointed external 
vehicle ; compare Mark i. 4, Bdrricpa 
peravolas (‘ which binds to rep.’), which, 
grammatically considered, is somewhat 
similar, and as for examples of these ob- 
scurer uses of the gen., see Winer, Gr. § 
30. 2, p. 168, 169. ‘The distinction be- 
tween Regeneration and Renovation 
(preserved in our Service of Confirma- 
tion), in respect of (a) ‘the ‘ causa effi- 
ciens,’ (b) duration, and (c) recurrence, 
— three important theological differentic, 
is nowhere more perspicuously stated 
than by Waterland /.c. p. 436; compare 
notes on Hph. iv. 23, and there’ observe 
the force of the tenses. Lastly, for a 
comparison between. ‘ regeneratio’ and 
‘conversio,’ see Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 454, 
Vol. 11. p. 357. 

6. 06] scil. Tlvedparos ayiov; not de- 
pendent on Aovtpod (Calv.), or on an 
omitted prep. (Heydenr.), but, according 
to the usual rule of attraction, on the 
gen. immediately preceding: od pdvoy 
yap 80 adrod dvéwAacev, GAXX Kad Sai- 
Ads TovTov merédwxev, Theophyl. 
é€&éxeev] ‘poured out,’ ‘ shed,’ ‘non di- 


avakaw. K.T.A. 


cit dedit sed effudit,’ Corn. a Lap.; in 
similar reference to the Holy Spirit, Acts 
ii. 17, 18, 833. There does not, however, 
appear to be here any special reference 
to the Pentecostal effusion (Olsh.), nor to 
the communication to the Church at large 
(Est., comp. De W.), but, as the tense 
and context (ver. 7) seem rather to im- 
ply, to individuals in baptism. The next 
clause points out through whose media- 
tion this blessed effusion is bestowed. 
514 "Ino. Xp. is not to be separated, as 
in Mill, Griesb., Lachm., by’ a comma 
from the clause éééyeev x. T. A., but con- 
nected closely with it: if the words be 
referred to éowoey, there will be not only 
a slight tautology gowrey — Sid cwripos, 
but the awkwardness of two clauses with 
dia each dependent on the same verb. 
Thus then the whole is described as the 
work of the Blessed Trinity. The Fa- 
ther saves us by the medium of the out- 
ward laver which conveys the inward 
grace of the regenerating and renewing 
Spirit; that Spirit again is vouchsafed 
to us, yea, poured out abundantly on us 
only through the merits of Jesus Christ. 
So the Father is our cwrfp, and the Son 
our owrhp, but in different ways ; ‘ Pater 
nostre salutis primus auctor, Christus 
vero opifex, et quasi artifex,’ Justiniani. 
7. tva «.7.A.] Design of the more 
remote @owaev (De Wette), not of the 
nearer étéxeev (Wiesing., Alf.). The 
latter construction is fairly defensible, 


* but apparently not so simple or satisfac- 


tory. Though some prominence is given 
to ééxeev, both by the adverb rAovelws, 
and by the defining words 6:4 "Ina. Xp., 
yet the whole context seems to mark 
éswoey as the verb on which the final 
clause depends. We were once in a 
hopeless and lost state, but we were res- 
cued from it by the p:AavSpwria of God, 


eS 


of eternal life. 


Cuap. IIL. 8. 


Teach men to maintain 
good works; avoid idle 


TITUS. 915 


8 ITiatos 6 AGyos, Kal Tept TobT@Y Bodropat 


questions, and shun an ob- ge dvaBeBavodoSat, wa ppovrivocw alap dps 


stinate heretic. 


who net merely saved us from the dovaeta 
of sin, but associated with it the gracious 
intent that we should become «Anpovduot 
dikarwdév- 
t+ ¢s| ‘justified, in the usual and more 
strict theological sense ; not, however, as 
implying only a mere outward non-im- 
putation of sin, but as involving a ‘mu- 
tationem status,’ an acceptance into new 
privileges and an enjoyment of the bene- 
fits thereof, Waterl. Justef. Vol. vi. p.5: 
in the words of the same writer, ‘ justifi- 
cation cannot be conccived without some 
work of the Spirit in conferring a title to 
salvation,’ 7b. p. 6. 

exelvov may be referred to the Holy 
Spirit (Wiesing.), but is apparently more 
correctly referred to God the Father. 
The Holy Spirit is undoubtedly the efi- 
cient (1 Cor. vi. 11), as our Lord is the 
meritorious cause of our justification ; the 
use, however, of the .expression ydpis, 
which in reference to Sixeaocdvn and o- 
kaidm seems almost regularly connected 
with the principal cause, the Father (Rom. 
iii. 24), and its apparent retrospective ref- 
erence to é& &ywy, ver. 5, renders the 
latter interpretation much more probable ; 
eompare Waterland Justifi Vol. vi. p. 9. 
The pronoun ékefyov seems to have been 
used to preclude a reference to "Injcod Xp., 
which so immediately precedes. 

kat éAmldal ‘in respect of hope,’ ‘ ac- 
cording to hope,’ «secundum spem,’ Vulg., 
Clarom., surely not ‘ through hope,’ Co- 
nyb.,—a needless violation of the usual 
force of the preposition. These words 
may be connected with (wis aiwvtou (Co- 
ray, Matth., Alf.; compare Tit. i. 1), 
but as «Anpovdmor, a term not in any way 
elucidated by a foregoing context (as is 
the case in all other passages where it 
stands alone) would thus be left wholly 
isolated, it seems more natural to regard 
them as.a restrictive addition to the lat- 


ter words,— kadsas 7ATicamev, of rws dro- 
Aavoouev, Chrysost.; so, very distinctly, 
Theophylact in loc. The dnpovouta 
(wijs aiwy. is really future (compare Rom. 
viii, 24, where éAmld: is probably a dat. 
modi, see Meyer in loc.), though present 
in respect of hope ; €f yap ottws ameyyvwo- 
Hevous, ws avwdev yeryndijvat, &s xdpite 
codiva, ws undty éxovtas [Cod. Colb.] 
ayaddy, Erwoe, TOAAG pGAdAov ev TH meA- 
AovtTt TovTO épydoetat, Chrysost. The 
remark of De Wette that St. Paul does 
not elsewhere specifically join KAypov. or 
even éAmis (except in this Ep.) with (w} 
aidy. is true, but ean scarcely be consid- 
ered of moment, as substantially analo- 
gous sentiments (compare Ephes, i. 18, 1 
Thess. vy. 8) can be adduced without dif- 
ficulty ; comp. Wieseler in loc. 

8. miatds 6 Adyos] ‘Faithful is 
the saying,’ in emphatic reference to what 
has been asserted in the preceding verses 
4—7, and to the important doctrines they 
involve ; émei5}) wept weAAdvTwY diadeXOT 
kal ovmrw mapdytwy, emfyaye Td dtidmioror, 
Chrysost. On this formula see notes on 
1 Tim. 1. 15, 
wept TovTwY SiaBeB.] ‘ make asseve- 
ration concerning these things ;’ not ‘ heec as- 
severare,’ Beza, Auth. Ver., De Wette, 
but, as in 1 Tim. i.7 (where see notes), 
‘de his [non de rebus frivolis, Beng.] af- 
firmare,’ Clarom., changed for the worse 
in Vulg. to ‘confirmare:’ comp. Scho- 
lef. Hints, p. 127 (ed. 3). The object 
and intent of the order is given in the 
following clause. 
ppovtiCwarv] ‘be careful;’ dm. re- 
yéu. in the N. T.; %pyov kat orovSacpa 
dinverts Exwor, Theophylact. ‘ Vult eos 
studium suum curamque hue applicare, 
et videtur quum dicit ppovr. eleganter 
alludere ad inanes eorum contemplatio- 
nes, qui sine fructu et extra vitam phi- 
losophantur,’ Calvin. The constructions 


216 


TITUS. 


Cuap. III. 8, 9. 


A ie % la na fal , ’ x New 
yov mpoloracSar of memuotevKdTes Ocwe TadTa eoTwW Kara Kal 
a aN ‘ 

Hpripa toils avSperois, 9% popas S€ EyTijces Kal yeveadoyias 


of povr. and éxppoyt. are noticed by 
Thomas M. p. 289 (ed. Bern.). 
mpototac&ai| ‘to be forward in, to 


v m™ 
practise,’ Syr. ets SSS [operari, fa- 


cere]; so mpotor. téxvns, Athen, XIII. 
612, see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. 11. 
p- 1122. The Vulg., Clarom. (‘bonis 
operibus praeesse ’), and some other trans- 
lations endeavor to retain the primary 
meaning of the verb, but not successfully 
nor idiomatically. Justiniani compares 
‘preefectus annone ;’ Estius adopts the 
gloss, ‘tanquam operum exactores et 
prefecti;’ Priczeus (ap. Poli Syn.) para- 
phrases by jyeudvas eivat; alii alia. All 
this, however, seems slightly forced ; the 
word appears chosen to mark a ‘ prompt, 
sedulous attention to (comp. Polyb. Hist. 
VI. 34. 3, mpoloravra xpelas), and prac- 
tice of, good works,’ but, as the exam- 
ples adduced appear to show, scarcely in- 
volves any further idea of ‘bene agendo 
precedere,’ Beza, al. : see the numerous 
examples quoted by Kypke, Obs. Vol. 
11. 881, Loesner, Obs. p. 430. 

Karav epywr] ‘good works;’ not 
merely with reference to works of mercy 
(Chrys.), but (as in ch. ii. 7, iii. 14, al.) 
generally, and comprehensively. The 
recurrence of this expression in the Pas- 
toral Epistles (ver. 14, 1 Tim. v. 10, 25, 
vi. 18, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 21, 
Tit. iii. 1) has been often noticed ; all 
that need be said is; that the nature of 
the errors condemned in these Epistles 
was exactly such as required the reitera- 
tion of such a command. It was not to 
be a hollow, specious, falsely ascetic, and 
sterile Christianity, but one that showed 
itself in outward actions ; compare Wie- 
sing. Hinleit. § 4, Neander, Plant., Vol. 
1. p. 343 (Bohn). 

memiat. @e@ ‘who have believed God,’ 
— God, not perhaps without some slight 


emphasis; ‘non dixit qui credunt ho- 
minibus sed qui credunt Deo,’ Jerome. 
The expression is certainly not to be 
limited to the Gentile Christians (Mack), 
but includes all who by God’s grace had 
been led to embrace His Adyov and d:5a0- 
kaAdlay (ch. i. 8, ii. 10), De W., Wiesing. 
On the constructions of mioris and mo- 
rebw. see notes on 1 Tim. i. 16. 

tadta] ‘these things,’ scil. these instruc- 
tions, this practical teaching (Fell), to 
which the pwpal (thoes in the next ver. 
forms a sharp and clear contrast. Wie- 
singer refers the pronoun to KaA& epya ; 
this, however, even if it escapes tautol- 
ogy, does not equally well maintain the 
antithesis to the meaning here assigned 
to (ythoes. In the following words ka- 
Aad (‘ good,’ per se, opp. to udrato1, ver. 9) 
forms one predication, kal a@peAma Tots 
avSpémois another; compare notes on 1 
Tim. ii. 8. . 

9. (nthaets| ‘questions (of contro- 
versy) ;? exactly as in 1 Tim. i. 4, where 
see notes. In the latter passage De W- 
here assigns the meaning ‘ Streitigkei- | 
ten,’-and yet in his note on the passage 
adopts the present meaning ‘ Streitfra- 
gen,—a self-contradiction by no means 
usual in that careful commentator. The 
word is only used by St. Paul in the 
Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 4, 2 
Tim. ii. 23. On the yeveadoylas, see 
notes on 1 Tim. i. 4, where the expression 
is investigated : itis here associated with 
(nr. as probably marking the leading 
subject and theme of these controversial 
discussions ; compare Winer, Gr. § 57. 
2.obs:,;p. olan pers Kah 
maxX. vou] ‘strifes and contentions about 
the law’ are the results of these foolish 
and unpractical questions; see 1 Tim. 
vi. 4, 2 Tim. ii. 23. The adj. vouirad is 
not to be referred to both substantives 
(Heydenr.), but only to the latter; the 


Cuap. III. 10. ELD US. 


217 


a OF \ fa \ fh 2 iN \ > A 
Kal Epels Kab paxas VOMLKAS TTEPLLOTAGO* E€etLolv yap avapeneis 
kal para. 1 Aipetixov avSpwmov pera piay Kat Sevtépay 

‘10. devrépav vousectay] So Rec. with ACKL; mss.; Vulg., al.; many Gr. and 
Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Huth., Alf.). The reading adopted by Tisch., 
ulay vouseolay (DEFG; Clarom., Sangerm , Syr.-Philox. ; Chrys., Theodoret (1) ; 
Lat. Ff.) cat devrépay, though fairly supported, does not seem so satisfactory ; tran- 
scribers appear to have felt a difficulty about the close union of uiay and Sevrépay 
(DE; Clarom., Sangerm., Copt. read dvo), and to have introduced in consequence 


variations in the text. 


bax. vou. were a special and prevailing 
form of the épes, just as the yeveadA. were 
of the (yrfces, Wiesing. The conten- 
tions perhaps turned on the authority and 
application of some of the precepts in the 
law ; comp. i. Tim. i. 4. 
mepitataco| ‘avoid, go out of the way 
of, ‘devita,” Vulg., Clarom.; see notes 
on 2 Tim. ii. 16, the only other passage 
in St. Paul’s Epistles where the word 
occurs. batatotl ‘vain,’ 
from which nothing of true value results, 
in opp. to kaAd, ver. 8. Mdrauos is here 
and James i. 26, as in Attic Greek, of 
two terminations; the fem. occurs 1 Cor. 
xv. 17, 1 Pet. i.18. On the distinction 
between kévos (contents,—‘das Gehalt- 
lose’) and pdraos (results,—‘das EKr- 
folglose’) see Meyer on 1 Cor. xv. 17: 
Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 173) compares 
them with the Lat. ‘ inanis’ and ‘ vanus.’ 
10. aipetixdy &vSpwmrov| ‘An 
heretical man,’ ‘a man who causeth divis- 
ions ;’ ‘quisquis sua protervia unitatem 
ecclesie abrumpit,’ Calvin. The exact 
meaning here of this word (an 7. Aeyédu. 
in N. T.) must not be deduced from the 
usage of later writers, but simply from 
the apostle’s use of the substantive from 
which it is derived. ‘The term aipéoess 
oecurs (not ‘often,’ Huther, but) twice 
in St. Paul’s Epistles,—1 Cor. xi. 19, 
where it denotes apparently something 
more aggravated than ox{cuara, ‘ dissen- 
sions of a more matured character’ 
(‘nullum schisma non aliquam sibi con- 
fingit heresim,’ Jerome), and Gal. v. 20, 
|. where it is enumerated after d:xooracla. 


28 


In neither case, however, does the word 
seem to imply specially ‘ the open espou- 
sal of any fundamental error’ (the more 
definite eccles. meaning ; comp. Origen 
on Tit. Vol. rv. p. 695, Bened., Waterl. 
Doct. of Trin. ch. rv. Vol. 111. p. 461), 
but, more generally, ‘ divisions in church 
matters,’ possibly, of a somewhat ma- 
tured kind, ras piAoverkias Aéyer, Theod. 
on 1 Cor.l. c., see Suicer, Thesaur.s. v. 1. 
3, Vol. 1. p. 120. Thus, then, aiperixds 
&vSp. will here be one who gives rise to 
such divisions by erroneous teaching, not 
necessarily of a fundamentally heterodox 
nature, but of the kind just described, 
ver. 9; comp. ch. i. 14. If we adopt 
this apparently fair and reasonable inter- 
pretation, the objections of De Wette and 
others, founded on the later and more 
special meanings of afpeois and aipetixds, 
wholly fall to the ground. 

MeT& wlav x.7.A.| ‘after one and a 
second [unavailing] admonition ;’ Titus is 
not to contend, he is only to use vouSecta, 
if that fail he is then to have nothing 
further to do with the offender. On the 
distinction between vouvSeoia (‘que fit 
verbis’) and maSela (‘ quee fit per penas’), 
see notes on Eph. vi. 4; and on the use 
of eis for mpéros, here’ associated with 
devrepos, and consequently less peculiar 
and Hebraistic than when alone, as in 
Matth. xxviii. 1, Mark xvi. 2, al., see 
Winer, Gr. § 37. 1, p. 222. 


Tapartod| ‘shun,’ da] lit. ‘ask 
off from ’] Syriac, ‘ devita, Vulg., Cla- 
rom. ; ‘monere desine; laterem lavares,’ 


218 


vovSeclay Tapattod, 


x 
dpapTdver Ov avToKaTaKpLTos. 
Come to me at Nicopolis ; 


bring Zenas and Apollos. 
Our brethren must not be unfruitful. 


Beng.: see notes on1 Tim.iv.7. There 
is nothing in this or the associated words 
which favors any definite reference to for- 
mal excommunication, =é«BaddAe, Vi- 
tringa (de Vet. Syn. 111. 1.10, p. 756), 
who compares the vouSecia to the ‘ cor- 
reptio’ or ‘excommunicatio privata’ of 
the Jews; similar. Taylor, Episc. § 15. 
This, however, is importing into a gen- 
eral word a special meaning. As we 
certainly have such expressions as mapai- 
Teicdat Thy yuvaika (repudiare), Plut. 
Apopth. 206 a, and even amwS<etcdat 
kal TAS oiKias maparteioSo, Lucian, Ab- 
dic. § 19; we perhaps may say with Wa- 
terland (Doctr. of Trin. ch. 4, Vol. 111. 
p. 466), that mapa:rod ‘implies and infers 
acommand to exclude them ;’ but St. 
Paul's previous use of the word does not 
apparently justify our asserting that it is 
here formally expressed: see notes in 
Translation. 

ll. ei5a@s] ‘as thou knowest, by the 
ill success of thy admonitions ; reason 
for the injunction to have nothing to do 
with him : 67ay 5& ShAos H mact Kal pave- 
pos, Tivos evecey TuxTeves eiky ; Chrys. 


éEéotpamtat| ‘is perverted,’ Syriac 


yoy 
SQ.2555 [perversus], lit. ‘hath been 


turned, thoroughly, inside out;’ Schol. 
on Arist. Nub. 88, amd wetapopas tay 
pumoupévwy ivatiwy Kal éxoTpepouevwr’ 
exoTpepat 5& iudriov Td aGAAdEAL Td Tpds TH 
tow pépos Ew (cited by Wetst.) : so Deut. 
xxxii. 20, yevéa ekeotpappevn, Hebrew 
n=oprm aia. The strengthened com- 
pouiid thus appears to denote the com- 
plete inward corruption and perverseness 
of character which must be predicated of 
any man who remains thus proof against 
twice-repeated admonitions. Baur (it is 
to be feared), only to support his mean- 


TITUS. 


Cuap. III. 11, 12. 


11 ida ec 3s ‘4 lol “2 
E€LOWS OTL eLéotpamTat O TOLOVTOS Kab 


2 "Orav wépryw Apteuay pos ce i) TxsKor, 


ing of aiperinds, refers eEeorp. to the out- 
ward act of the man, ‘has gone away 
from us ;’ this, as Wiesing. properly re- 
marks, would more naturally be &7o- 
oTpeper sai. avToKaT d- 
kptitos| ‘self-condemned ;’ the reason 
why he is to be left to himself; he has 
been warned twice and now sins against 
light, ov yap xet eireiv, St ovdels Eimer, 
ovdels evousérnoev, Chrysost. The ag- 
gravating circumstance is not that the 
man condemns himself directly and ex- 
plicitly, as this might be a step to recov- 
ery, but that he condemns himself indi- 
rectly and implicitly, as acting against the 
law of his mind, and doing in his own 
particular case what in the general he 
condemns ;_ see especially Waterland, 
Doct. of Trin. ch. 1v. Vol. 111. p. 464, 
where this expression is fully investi- 
gated. 

12. Tdxtxov] On Tychicus, whom 
the apostle (Col. iv. 7) terms 6 ayamrnrds 
GdeA@bs, Kal moTds Sidkovos Kal cbydou- 
Aos év Kupiw, see the notes on 2 Tim. iv. 
12, Eph. vi. 21. It would seem not im- 
probable that either Artemas or Tychi- 
cus were intended to supply the place of 
Titus in Crete during his absence with 
the apostle. Of Artemas nothing is 
known. NikomoaAty] 
There were several cities of this name, 
one in Cilicia (Strabo xrv. 676), another 
in Thrace on the river Nestus, a third in 
Epirus (Strabo, x11. 325), built by Au- 
gustus after the battle of Actium. It is 
extremely difficult to decide which of 
these cities is here alluded to; Schrader 
(Paulus, Vol. 1. p. 118) fixes on the 
first ; the Greek commentators, the sub- 
scription at the end of the Epistle (Nixo7. 
Ths Makedovlas, to which country it was 
near, compare Theodoret), and some 


Cuap. III. 13) 14. 


Urs. 


219 


orrovdacoy édseiv Tpos me ets Nixdrodw éxet yap Kéxpika Tapa- 


NELULAT AL. 
meprpov, tva pndev avtots NELTry. 


modern writers, on the second; Wiese- 
ler (Chronol. p. 335) and others on the 
third. Perhaps the second may seem to 
harmonize better with the scanty notices 
of the last journey from Asia Minor to 
the West in 2 Tim. iv. 10 sq. (Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 344, Bohn), but as 
the city of Epirus appears to have been 
a place of much more importance, and 
not unsuitable as a centre for missionary 
operations, it may perbaps be assumed 
as not improbably the place here alluded 
to; see Conyb. and Howson, St. Paul, 
Vol. 11. p. 572 (ed. 2). 

kéxpikal ‘I have determined,’ with de- 
pendent infin., a form of expression used 
elsewhere by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 37 
(perf.), 2 Cor. ii. 1 (aor.). 
mapaxetpacar| ‘to winter ;’ Demosth. 
Phorm. 909. 14, mapaxemmdCovre éxe?, ib. 
Dionys. 1292, Polyb. Hist. 11. 64. 1, 111. 
33. 5, al.: in this compound the prep. 
mapa seems to mark the locality at which 
the action was to take place, comp. Rost 
u. Palm, Zex.s. v. rv. 1, Vol. 11. p. 670. 
There does not appear anything in the 
expression from which any historical de- 
duction can be safely drawn; possibly 
the winter was drawing near, and the 
apostle on his way (éxe?, ‘non dicit hic,’ 
Beng.) to Nicopolis. 

138. Znvav| A name perhaps con- 
tracted from Znvddwpos: of the bearer of 
it nothing is known. It is doubtful 
whether the term vouixds implies an ac- 
quaintance with the Roman (Grot.) or 
Hebrew law (De W.). The latter is the 
opinion of Chrysost., Jerome, and The- 
oph., and is perhaps slightly the more 
probable; comp. Matth. xxii. 35. For 
notices of an apocryphal work, assigned 
to Zenas, ‘De vita et actis Titi,’ comp. 
Fabricius Cod. Apocr. Vol. 11. p. 831. 
‘AmoAA@] ‘ Apollos,’ sc. Apollonius [as 


13 Znvav tov vopixov Kat ’ArroAA® oTrovdaiws Tpd- 


* pavSavétwoav 6é Kal ob TyéTe- 


in Cod. D ap. Acts xviii. 24], or possi- 
bly Apollodorus,— an eloquent (Adyios, 
Acts /. ¢., see Meyer in loc.) Jew of Al- 
exandria, well versed in the Scriptures; 
and a disciple of St. John the Baptist ; 
he was instructed in Christianity by 
Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 26); 
preached the Gospel with signal success 
in Achaia and at Corinth, and appears 
to have maintained relations of close in- 
timacy with St. Paul, compare 1 Cor. 
xvi. 12. There appears no good reason 
for supposing any greater differences be- 
tween the teaching of St. Paul and Apol- 
los (Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 23) 
sq., Bohn), than may be referred to the 
mere outward form in which that teach- 
ing possibly might have been communi- 
cated, and which comes from that one 
and the same Spirit which d:ape? tdie 
ExdoTw Kades BovAerat (1 Cor. xii. 11) ; 
see Winer, RIVB. Art. ‘ Apollos,’ Vol. 
1. p. 68. Much that has been recently 
advanced on the differences between St. 
Panl and Apollos is very doubtful and 
very unsatisfactory. 

mpdmenwyor| ‘conduct, ‘forward on 
their journey,’ with the further idea, as 
the context seems to require, of supply- 
ing their various needs; compare 3 
John 6. 

14. of nuérepor] ‘our brethren in 
Crete,’ not ‘ nostri ordinis homines ’ (Be- 
za), scil. ‘ Apollos, Tychicus, et alii quos 
mittimus si quo in loco resederint’ 
(Grot.), as this would imply a compari- 
son between them and St. Paul, and 
would involve a meaning of mpotor. kad. 
épy. (‘habere domi officinam aliquam, 
me imitantes, Acts xx. 34,’ Grot.), some- 
what arbitrary, and wholly different to 
that in ver. 8. The juérepor are rather 
oi wept o€ (Theoph.), the kai tacitly com- 
paring them not with heathens (Hof- 


220 


TITUS. 


Cuapr. TIL. 15. 


a 7 of. > \ > / , vA A) 
pot Kadav épywv mpolotacSa: eis Tas dvayKaias ypelas, wa pap 


How &KapTrot. 


Salutations and Benedic- 
tion. 


\ fo! e a b] i 
Tacat ToUs PidovYTAS Nuas EV TioTEL. 


UPLOV. 


mann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 429), but 
with Titus; ‘let these Cretan brethren 
of ours be not backward in co-operating 
with thee in these acts of duty and be- 
nevolence.’? On mpotor. x. 7. A., see notes 
on ver. 8. eis T&S GvayK. 
xpetas] ‘with reference to the necessary 
wants ;’ 1.e. to supply them: compare 
Phil. iv. 16, eis thy xpelayv wor emeupare. 
The article appears to mark the known 
and existing wants. 

&kapmot| ‘unfruitful,’ not solely and 
specially with reference to the wants of 
their teachers {‘ quicunque evangelistis 
non ministraverint,’ Just.), but also with 
reference to their own moral state, 7. e. 
without showing practical proofs of their 
faith by acts of love. 

15. of wer éuod] ‘those with me,’ in 
my company, journeying or abiding with 
me; compare Gal. i. 2, of cby éuol, where 
the idea of union in action (coherence), 
rather than mere local union (co-exist- 
ence), seems intended to be expressed ; 
see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1. 

Tovs btAodvTas k.T.A.] ‘those who 
love us in faith, those who love me in 


a ” 
15 ’Aomdtovtrat ce of pet ewov Tavtes’ do- 


 Xapis peTa TaVTOV 


the sphere of faith; not merely mords 
kat GddAws, Theophilact, or d:a mlorews, 
Gicum., but ‘in faith,’ as the common 
principle which bound together and hal- 
lowed their common love. From the 
concluding words, 7 xdpis peta mévTwv 
judy (Col. iv. 18), there is no reason to 
infer that the Epistle was intended for 
the church as well as Titus. Itis merely 
an inclusive benediction that compre- 
hends the érioxoros, and those commit- 
ted to his oversight, Titus and all the 
faithful in Crete. ’Auhy (Rec. with 
D?D°EFGHKL) here, as well as in 1 
Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22, seems an in- 
terpolation, though in this case supported 
by stronger external evidence. It is 
bracketed by Lachmann, and is rejected 
by Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, with 
ACD!: 17; Clarom., Ath.-Pol.; Hier., 
Ambrst. 

In the conclusion of all St. Paul’s 
Epistles, except Rom. (om. only by 1 
ms., and Am.), Gal. (om. G, Boern., 
Ambrst.), there are similar variations. 
Accidental omission seems less proba- 
ble than insertion. 


TRANSLATION. 


WrO TT nC Hs 


THE same principles are observed in this translation as in those of the 
GALATIANS and Epruesrans. The Authorized Version is only altered 
where it appears to be incorrect, inexact, insufficient, or obsctre. There are 
however a few cases in which I have ventured to introduce another correction 
— viz., where our venerable Version seems to be inconsistent in its renderings 
of important or less usual words and forms of expression. These peculiarly 
occur in this group of Epistles, and the process of translation has made me 
feel the necessity of preserving a certain degree of uniformity in the mean- 
ings assigned to some of the unusual yet recurrent terms and expressions. 

This modification has been introduced with great caution, for, as the 
reader is probably aware, our last Translators state very explicitly that they 
have not sought to preserve a studied uniformity of translation, and have not 
always thought it necessary to assign to the same word, even in very similar 
combinations, the same meaning. To affect then a rigorous uniformity would 
be to reverse the principles on which that Version was constructed, and would 
not be revision but reconstruction. I have trusted then to my own judgment ; 
where it has seemed necessary to be uniform, I have been so; where this 
necessity has not been apparent, I have not ventured to interfere with the 
felicitous variety of expression which characterizes our admirable Version. 
Whether in a new translation some few general rules and principles might 
not be thought desirable is fairly open to discussion ; in a revision of an old 
translation, however, such rules can only be laxly observed, and must yield 
to individual judgment and be modified by the characteristics of the original. 
I dare not hope to have been always consistent, but I have striven to be cau- 
tious and circumspect, and I trust I may not be found too often to have been 
arbitrary or capricious. 

The notes will be found a little fuller, asI have been assured by several 
friends that a greater interest is felt in the collations of the older Versions 
than I could have at all expected. These Versions are exactly the same as 
those in the previous epistles, and are detailed in the Notice to the Trans- 
lation of the Galatians. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


CMAP TH Red. 


AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus, according to the command- 

ment of God our Saviour and Christ Jesus our Hope, 2 unto 
Timothy, my true child in the faith. Grace, mercy, and peace, 
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 

3 Hven as I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I was 
on my way into Macedonia, that thou mightest command some not 


1. Christ Jesus] * ‘ Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 
According to] So Rhem., Cov. (both), and 
Auth. Rom. xvi. 26, and Tit. i. 3: ‘by 
the,’ Auth., Wicl. and remaining Vv. 
Christ Jesus| * ‘Lord J.C.,’? Auth. The 
translation of émrayhy adopted by Cran., 
Gen., Bish., ‘commission,’ deserves at- 
tention ; but, perhaps, too much obscures 
the idea of the divine ordinance and com- 
mand under which the apostle acted ; 
comp. Acts ix. 16, dca de? x. 7. A., and 1 
Cor. ix. 15. It may be re- 
membered too that ‘command’ origi- 
nally seems to have meant ‘ power’ or 
authority, Synon., ed. by Whately, p. 91. 
Our Hope] So Wicel., Rhem., Cov. (Test.): 
Auth. prefixes ‘ which is’ with remaining 
Vv. 

2. True child} ‘My own son,’ Auth. ; 
‘beloved sone,’ Wiel., Rhem., Cov. 
(Test.); ‘naturall sonne,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. It seems desirable to 
retain the more literal translation of réx- 
voy wherever it does not seem at variance 


with our ordinary or idiomatic mode of 
expression (e. g. ver. 18): the distince- 
tion between réxvoy and vids is occasion- 
ally of considerable importance. 

The Father] * ‘ Our Father,’ Auth. 
Christ Jesus] ‘Jesus Christ,’ Auth., al., 
though doubtful on the authority of what 
edition. 

3. Even as] ‘ As,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. Was on my way] ‘ Went,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘ de- 
parted,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv. 
Command] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish., and by far the most usual transla- 
tion of the word elsewhere in Auth.: 
‘charge, Auth.; ‘denounse,’, Wicl., 
Rhem.; ‘warne,’ Cov. (Test.). The full 
authoritative meaning of the word should 
not be here impaired in translation ; see 
notes. Not to be teachers, ete. | 
‘That they teach no,’ Auth., and sim. 
the other Vy. except Cran., ‘folowe no 
straunge, etc.;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ preache 
none otherwyse.’ 


224 


to be teachers of other doctrine, 


1 TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. I. 4—7. 


4nor yet to give heed to fables 


and endless genealogies, seeing they minister questions rather than 


-God’s dispensation, which is in faith,— so I do now. 


5 But the 


end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and a good 


conscience, and unfeigned faith : 


6 from which some having gone 


wide in aim have turned themselves aside unto vain babbling ; 
7 willing to be teachers of the law; yet not understanding either 


4. Nor yet) ‘Neither,’ Auth. and all 
Vy. except Rhem., ‘nor.’ This is perhaps 
a case where it may seem necessary to 
adopt a more rigorous translation of 
pndé: where the things prohibited are 
not very different in their character, the 
ordinary translation will perhaps be suf- 

ficiently exact; here, however, the tives 
“are not merely to abstain from teaching 
others such profitless subjects, but are 
themselves not to study them. On the 
full force of ovdé or pide after od and uh, 
see Franke’s very good treatise de Part. 
Neg. 11.5, and illustrate his remark,— 
that ovdé hints at an indefinite number of 
consequent terms, by Judges i. 27, where 
ov is followed by fourteen clauses with 
ovde. To give] ‘give,’ Auth. 
Seeing they] ‘ which,’ Auth. and all Vy. 
God’s dispensation] ‘Godly edifying,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wiel., 
‘edificacioun of God,’ and sim. Rhem., 
Cov. ( Test.). I do now] ‘1 do,’ Auth. 

5. But] So Bish, Rhem.: ‘now, 
Auth. ; ‘for,’ Wicl. and remaining Vv. 
Love] So all Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., and Auth. It is curi- 
rious why this change was made, except 
for variation from ver. 14; comp. Vulg. 
Our last translators were by no means 
uniform in their translation of dyarn: 
even in cases where it is associated with 
miatis and they might have wished to 
have marked a quasi-theological mean- 
ing, it is not uncommonly translated 
love; compare ch. vi. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 6, 
al. Unfeigned faith] ‘ Faith 
unfeigned,’ Auth. Slight change to pre- 
serve the unemphatic order of the Greek ; 


’ 


see Winer, Gr. § 59.2. English usage 
is here just the reverse of the Greek. 

6. Gone wide in aim| ‘ Swerved,’ 
Auth. ; ‘have erred,’ Wicl. and the other 
Vv. except Coverd. (Test.), ‘ errynge ;’ 
Bish., ‘having erred ;” Rhem., ‘ straying.’ 
It seems clear our translators made the 
change from a desire to preserve the 
proper construct. of aoroxety with a gen., 
and yet not, as Cov. (Test.), to fall into 
barbarous English, or as Wicl., al., to 
change the part. into a finite verb,—an 
inexactness which Conyb. has not avoid- 
ed. To ‘ go wide from,’ is according to 
the exx. in Johnson s. v. ‘ wide,’ perfect- 
ly correct. 

Turned themselves] ‘ Turned,’ Auth. and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘are turned :’ it is perhaps desir- 
able to retain here the medial force of 
the passive form éferpdmyoap. 

Babbling] ‘ Jangling,’ Auth. and all Vy. 
except Wicel., ‘speche ;’ Rhem., ‘ talke.’ 
The change seems required, as ‘ jangling” 
might be understood in its secondary 
sense. It is’found in Gower, Chaucer, 
al., as here, in the sense of ‘prating,’ 
‘idly talking.’ 

7. Willing] So Wicl., Cov, (both) : 
‘desiring,’ <Auth.; ‘they wolde be,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘ covetyng,’ Bish. ; 
‘desirous,’ Rhem. Though it is not al- 
ways possible in the N. T. to keep up the 
exact distinction between SéAw and Bod- 
Aoua (see notes on ch. ii. 8, and y. 14), 
this perhaps is a case where it may be 
maintained : the false teachers were quite 
willing to undertake the office, though 
they had really no claims. Yet 


Cuar. I. 8—14. 1 TIMOTHY. 


225 


what they say, or about what they make asseveration. ® Now we 
know that the law zs good, if a man use it lawfully, ® knowing 
this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the law- 
less and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and pro- 
fane, for smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers, for manslayers, 
* for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, 
for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any 
other thing that is contrary to the sound doctrine, ™ according to 
the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to 
my trust. 

* And I thank him who gave me inward strength, Christ Jesus 
our Lord, that He counted me faithful, having appointed me for 
the ministry, * though formerly I was a blasphemer, and a perse- 
cutor, and a doer of outrage: still I obtained mercy, because I did 
at ignorantly in unbelief, “* yea the grace of our Lord was exceed- 


not underst.| Sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen., 
‘and yet understonde not:’ Auth., Cov. 
(Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘not understand- 
ing.’ : Either — or] ‘ Neither 
—nor,’ Auth. About what, 
etc.] ‘ Whereof they affirm,’ Auth. and 
all Vy. except Wicl., ‘ of what thing is ;’ 
*of what,’ Rhem. 

8. Now] ‘But,’ Auth., Cov. (both), 
Bish., Rhem.; other Vv. omit except 
Wicl., ‘ and.’ 

9. Unruly] So Auth. in Tit. i. 6, 10, 
but here ‘ disobedient,’ with Tynd. and 
all Vv. except Wicl., ‘not suget.’ 
Sinful] ‘ For sinners,’ Auth. and all Vy. 
(some ‘to,’ instead of ‘for’) : perhaps 
it is a little more exact to retain the ad- 
jective. For the unholy] ‘ For 
unholy,’ Auth.: the idiomatic English 
article is repeated for the sake of consist- 
ency. Smiters (bis)] ‘ Mur- 
derers’ (bis), Auth. and all Vv. except 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), sleers;’ Rhem., 
‘killers.’ 

10. The sound doctrine] Auth. omits 
the art. with Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Gen., 
Bish , Rhem. ; the remaining Vv. ( Wicl., 
Cov., Cran.) aaah insert it. 


11. Gospel of the glory] So rightly all 
the Vv. (Bish., ‘of glory’), except Auth., 
Gen., ‘glorious gospel.’ 

12. Him who, etc.| Similarly as to order 
Gen., Rhem., and it may be added, Syr. 
and Vulg., rightly preserving the more 
emphatic position : ‘C. J. our Lord who 
hath enabled me,’ Auth., and sim. re- 
maining Vv., except with variations in 
the translation of évduv. e. g. “hath made 
me strong,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish. ; ‘strengthened,’ Rhem. 

That] ‘ For that,’ Auth. 
Having appointed, etc.] ‘Putting me into,’ 
Auth., Bish., and similarly the other Vv. 

13. Though formerly] * ‘Who was be- 
fore,’ Auth. A doer of outrage} 
Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘doer of injury :’ ‘in- 
jurious,’ Auth. ; ‘ful of wrongis,’ Wiel. ; 
‘tyraunt,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘ oppres- 
sor,’ Gen., Bish. ; ‘contumelious,’ Rhem. 
Still] ‘But,’ Auth. and all Vv. except 
Bish., * but yet.’ 

14. Yea] ‘and,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘ but,’ 


Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘neverthelater,’ 
Tynd.; ‘nevertheless, Coverd., Cran., 
Bish. ; ‘yet,’ Gen. 


15. Fanapde is, etc.] ‘ This is a faithful 


29 


lr MOL X-. Cuap. I. 15—20 


226 


ing abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. ” Faith- 
ful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus 
came into the world to save sinners ; of whom I am chief. ™ How- 
beit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief Christ 
Jesus might show forth the whole of His long-suffering, to display 
a pattern for them which should hereafter believe on Him unto 
eternal life. ™” Now unto the King of ages, the immortal, invisible, 
only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. 

1 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, in accordance 
with the forerunning prophecies about thee, that thou mayest war in 
them the good warfare; ™ having faith, and a good conscience ; 
which some having thrust away, have made shipwreck concerning 
the faith: * of whom is Hymenzeus and Alexander ; whom I deliv- 
ered unto Satan, that they might be taught by chastisement not to 


blaspheme. 


saying, Auth., Bish. ; ‘this is a true s., 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘a trewe 
word,’ Wiel. ; ‘a faithful s.,’ Rhein. 

16. As chief] ‘First,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
(Bish. inserts art.) except Cov., ‘ princi- 
pally,’ and Cov. (Test.), which omits the 
word. 

Christ Jesus] *‘J. C.,’ Auth. 

The whole of | ‘ All,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
‘To display a pattern] Similarly, ‘to de- 
clare an ensample,’ Cran.: ‘for a pat- 
tern to,’ Auth.; ‘to enfourmynge of,’ 
Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘unto 
the example,’ Tynd., Cov. (‘to the’), 
Gen., Bish. (to the). Unto 
eternal life| ‘To life everlasting,’ Auth. 
It seems best to adopt the order which, 
properly considered, most exactly corre- 
sponds to that of the Greek, and to adopt 
the most general and inclusive transla- 
tion of aidvios; see notes on 2 Thess. i. 
9 (Transl.). 

17. Of ages] Simil., ‘ of the worldes,’ 
Wicl. (omits art.), Rhem.: ‘eternal,’ 
Auth. ;  everlastyng,’ Tynd., and remain- 
ing Vv. The immortal, etc.| 
‘Immortal, invisible, the only * wise 
God,’ Auth. 


18. In accordance with, etc.] ‘ Accord- 
ing to the prophecies which went before 
on thee,’ Author., Bish., and similarly 
Wicl., Rhem.; ‘proph., which in tyme 
past were prophesied of the,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen. Mayest war) 
‘By them mightest war,’ Auth. ; ‘shuld- 
est, etc.’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 
Change necessary to preserve the law of 
the succession of tenses; see Latham, 
Eng. Lang. § 616. In them| 
So all Vy. except Auth., which changes 
(not for the better) the év into ‘ by ;’ see 
notes. The good] ‘ A good,’ 
Auth. and all other Vv. 

19. Having] So Wiel. and all Vv. ex- 
cept Auth., which adopts ‘holding.’ 
Thrust] ‘Put,’ Auth, and the other Vv. 
except Wiel., ‘resten aweie;’ Ithem., 
‘ repelling.’ The fuith) So 
Wicl., Rhem.: ‘faith,’ Auth. and remain- 
ing Vv. When the article is inserted af- 
ter a preposition, it should never be over- 
looked in translation, if the English id- 
iom will permit it to be expressed. 

20. Delivered] ‘ Have delivered,’ Auth. 
and all Vy. except Wrel., ‘I betook,’ 
where the aoristic form is maintained as 


Cuap, Il. 152: 


Maree THY. 


227 


CHAPTER II. 


I exuort then first of all, that petitions, prayers, supplications, 
and giving of thanks, be made for all men; ? for kings, and all 
that are in authority ; that we may pass a quiet and tranquil life 


in the Greek. There are cases where the 
_ idiom of our language may seem posi- 
tively violated by an aoristic translation, 
especially in cases where viv or #57 is 
found with the aor. ; these are, however, 
cases in which we do not rashly assert 
that the aor. is used for the perf., but in 
which we only recognize an idiomatic 
power in the Greek aorist which does not 
exist in our English past tense. Where 
idiom requires us to insert ‘have’ (as 
perhaps just above, ver. 19), it must be 
inserted ; but these cases are fewer than 
modern translators seem generally aware 
of. Might be taught, etc.| 
‘May learn,’ Auth., and sim. all Vv. ex- 
cept Zynd., ‘be taught.’ The addition 
‘by chastisement,’ is necessary to convey 
the true meaning of madedw. 


CHarter II. 1. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. On this particle see 
notes in loc. It may be observed that, as 
a very general rule, it is better to trans- 
late oty ‘then,’ apa 
any rate, if ‘therefore’ be retained as a 
translation of the former particle, to 
place it as far onward in the clause as 
idiom will permit, so as to weaken its 
full illative force. The present seems an 
instance where the more exact distinc- 
tion (see notes on Gal. iii. 5) ought to be 
preserved ; still it is not wise in the N. 
T. generally to press this rule too rigor- 
ously, as in many cases the context and 
in many more the usus scribendi of the 
sacred author must be allowed to have 
cue weight in fixing on the translation. 
For example, St. John’s use of ody ap- 
pears to deserve considerable attention, 


‘therefore,’ or, at. 


especially, too, as he never uses &pa; and 
even St. Paul, it should be remembered, 
uses oéy, on an average, four times more 
than he does &pa. A really faithful trans- 
lation must take all these things into ac- 
count. First] ‘ That first,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Cran., which adopt the order of 
text. Petitions, prayers, ete.| 
‘Supplications, prayers, intercessions,’ 


-Auth., Gen. ; ‘prayers, supplications, in- 


tercessions,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. ; 
‘besechingis, preiers, axyngis,’ Wiel. ; 
‘earnest desires, praiers, requestes,’ Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘ obsecrations, praiers, postula- 
tions,’ Rhem. ‘Supplication’ is by no 
means a bad translation for dejo. (Eph. 
vi. 18); but as this is a technical pas- 
sage, it seems more suitable to reserve it 
for évrevéers ; see notes. 

2. Pass] ‘Lead,’ Auth.: slight change, 

but perhaps better maintaining the mixed 
subjective and objective ref. of the clause ; 
compare notes 27 loc. 
Quiet and tranquil] ‘ quiet and peaceable,” 
Auth. and all other Vv. Perhaps ‘ tran- 
quil’ expresses the idea of the rest ‘aris- 
ing from within’ (see notes) a little more 
fully than ‘peaceable ;” compare 1 Pet. 
iii. 4. Gravity] ‘ Honesty,’ 
Auth. and all Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘chastity.’ In the pre- 
ceding word, evo¢Beca, the transl. of Auth. 
has been retained, Though ‘ godliness ’ is 
more exactly Seocé€B., yet it is used in all 
the older Vv. (except only Wicl., Rhem., 
‘piety’) as the translation of edoéB., and 
seems fairly to suit all the passages where 
it occurs. The deviation of Auth. in 
Acts iii. 11 is not for the better. 


1 TIMOTHY. Cuap. II. 3—9 


228 


in all godliness and gravity. * For this is good and acceptable in 
the sight of our Saviour God ; 4 whose will is that all men should 
be saved, and should come unto the full knowledge of the truth. 
5 For there is one God and one mediator also between God and 
men, a man Christ Jesus; ® who gave Himself a ransom for all,— 


the testimony to be set forth in its own seasons. 


7 Whereunto I 


was appointed a herald, and an apostle (1 speak the truth, I lie 
not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 

8 I desire then that men pray in every place, lifting up holy 
hands, without wrath and doubting: 9° likewise that women 


8. Our Saviour God| So Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘God our Sav.,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. 

4. Whose will is, ete.] ‘Who will have,’ 
Auth. and all Vy. except Wicl., ‘ that 
wole,’ and sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. The 
translation of Scholef., ‘who willeth,’ is 
perhaps rather too strong. 

Should be] ‘To be,’ Auth. 

Should come] ‘'To come,’ Auth. The 
full knowledge] ‘The knowledge,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. except Wicl. ‘the know- 
ynge.’ 

5. And one med. also] Sim. Rhem., ‘one 
also med.:’ Auth. and all other Vy. 
(except Wicl., here erroneous), ‘and one 
med.’ The addition of ‘and’ in italics 
seems required by our idiom : indeed we 
may perhaps sometimes rightly say that 
the Greek «ai is occasionally in itself al- 
most equivalent to our ‘and —also.’ 

A man] So Wicl.; ‘man,’ Rhem.: Auth. 
and remaining Vv., ‘ the man.’ 

6. The testimony, etc.| ‘'To be testified 
in due time,’ Auth., and sim. Tynd., 
Cran., Cov. (‘be preached’). The true 
construction appears to have been ob- 
served in Gen., ‘which is that testimonie 
appointed at,’ and perhaps Bish., ‘a testi- 
mony in duetymes.’ All the Vv., except 
Auth., Bish., retain a more literal transl. 
of YSt0s, ‘his tymes.’ 

7. Was] ‘Am,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
Appointed| Rhem., and so Auth. in 2 


’ 


Tim. i. 11. Auth. and all other Vv., ex- 
cept Wiel. (‘ sette’), ‘have ordained’ 
Truth] ‘ Truth* in Christ,’ Auth, 

8. Desire then] ‘ Will therefore,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. In every place] 
So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘everywhere,’ 
Auth, and remaining Vv. except Wiel., 
‘in al place.’ 

9. Likewise, etc.| So Tynd., Coverd. 
(both), Cran., Gen., Bish., except that 
they insert ‘also’ immediately after- 
wards: ‘in like manner also,’ Auth. 

In modest guise| ‘Adorn themselves in ° 
modest apparel,’ Auth. ; ‘ that they araye 
themselves in comely app.,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. 

Shamefastness| So Auth. in the original 
edition, following Wicl., Tynd., Coverd., 
Cran., etc.: we may agree with Dean 
Trench (Synonyms, p. 78) in regretting 
that this spelling has been displaced in 
the modern editions for ‘ shamefaced- 
ness,’ a word in which the true etymol- 
ogy is perverted. Sober- 
mindedness| ‘ Sobriety,’ Auth., Rhem.; 
‘sobirnesse,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘ dis- 
crete behaviour,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; 
‘modestie,’ Gen. It is very difficult to 
select a translation for cwppoctyn. Our 
choice seems to lie between ‘ sobermind- 
edness’ and discretion ;’ the latter, more 
especially in the adjective (see two perti- 
nent exampies in Richardson, Dict. s. v., 
from Chaucer, Persones Tale, and Milton, 


Cuap. II. 10—III. 2. I PMO TY". 999 


also, in modest guise, with shamefastness and sobermindedness, do 
adorn themselves,—not with braided hair and gold, or pearls, or 
costly apparel, ” but Gwhich becometh women professing godliness) 
through good works. 

” Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. ” But I 
suffer not the woman to THACH, nor yet to have authority over the 
man, but to be in silence. ” For Adam was first formed, then 
Eve. “ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being 
plainly deceived fell into transgression. “ Yet she shall be saved 
by means of THE childbearing, if they continue in faith and love 
and holiness with sobermindedness. 


CHARTER -I TE. 


FAITHFUL is the saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, 
he desireth a good work. ® A bishop then must be irreproachable, 


Par. Reg. Book 11.), is very suitable in 
ref. to women (and is so used by Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., in ver. 15), but the former 
seems best to preserve the etymology of 
the original word. 

Braided| So Tynd. (‘broyded’) and the 
other Vv. except Auth., ‘ broidered’ (not 
a felicitous correction); Wéel., ‘ writh- 
un;’ Lhem., ‘ plaited.’ 

And] ** Or,’ Auth. Apparel] So 
Rhem. : ‘array’ Auth. and other Vv. except 
Wicl. and Cov. (Test.), ‘ precious cloth.’ 

10. Through] So Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Cran., Bish.: ‘with,’ Auth., Gen. ; ‘bi,’ 
Wicl., Rhem. 

12. The woman] ‘A woman,’ Auth. 
The insertion of the article seems re- 
quired by our idiom, as in ver. 11: see 
notes in loc. Nor yet] ‘ Nor,’ Auth. 
As the command seems to have also a 
general reference (see notes), it is per- 
haps better to be exact in odd¢; see notes 
on ch, i. 4 ( Transl.). Have 
auth.| So Tynd., Cov.: ‘usurp authori- 
ty,’ Auth, Cranm., Gen., Bish., Wicel., 
‘have lordschip ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘use au- 
thority ;’ Rhem., ‘have dominion.’ 

14. Plainly Weceived] * ‘ Deceived,’ 


Auth. Fell into] ‘Was in 
the,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., and sim. 
Tynd. ; ‘in brekinge of the lawe,’ Wiel. ; 
‘brought in the,’ Cov. ; ‘subdued to the,’ 
Cranm.; ‘was made giltie of, Gen. ; 
‘was in prevarication,’ Rhem. 

15. Yet] So Rhem.: ‘notwithstand- 
ing,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wiel., Cov. (Test.), ‘ but.’ 

By means of THE childbearing] ‘In child- 
bearing,’ Auth. ; ‘bi generacioun,’ Wicl., 
Rhem. ; ‘thorowe bearinge of ch.,’ Tynd. 
and remaining Vy. except Cov. (Test.), 
‘by engendrynge of,’ Love] 
So all Vv. except Auth., ‘charity,’ see 
notes on ch. i. 5 ( Zransl.) 

Sobermindedness| ‘ Sobriety,’ Auth.; see 
notes on ver. 9 (Transl.). 


Cuarter III. 1. Faithful is the say- 
ing] ‘ This is atrue saying,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen. ; ‘this is a faithful s.,’ 
Bish., sim. Cov. (Test.). 

2. TIrreproachable] Similarly Wiel., 
‘without repreef:’ ‘blameless,’ Auth., 
Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘fautlesse,’ Tynd., 
Gen.; ‘unrebukeable,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ir- 
reprehensible,’ Ahem. If the definition 


230 


LTIMO'THY. 


Cuap. III. 3—8. 


a husband of one wife, sober, soberminded, discreet, orderly, a 
lover of hospitality, apt to teach ; * not fierce over wine, no striker, 
but forbearing, averse to contention, not a lover of money, 4 one 
that ruleth well his own house, having Ais children in subjection 
with all gravity; 5 (But if a man know not how to rule his own 
house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) © not a new 
convert, lest being besotted with pride he fall into the judgment of 


the devil. 


7 Moreover he must have a good report also from them 


which are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the 


devil. 


8 Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not 


of Webster (Dict.) is right, ‘ irreproach- 
able = that cannot be justly reproached,’ 
this seems the translation needed ; see 
notes in loc. A husband] ‘ The 
husband,’ Auth. Sober, sober- 
minded] ‘ Vigilant, sober,’ Auth. ; ‘sobre, 
prudent,’ Wicl.; ‘sober, wyse,’ Coverd. 
(Test.), Rrem.; ‘sober, discrete,’ Tynd., 
Cov.; ‘diligent, sober,’ Cran.; ‘ watch- 
ing, sober,’ Gen., Bish. If there be any 
objection to this juxtaposition, we may 
adopt Tynd.; the transl. in text has, 
however, this advantage, that it implies 
that ynpdAcoy is not taken metaphorical- 
ly ; see notes. Orderly] 
“Of good behavigr,’ Auth.; ‘honestly 
appareled,’ Zynd., sim. Bish.; ‘man- 
erly, Cov. (both); ‘discrete,’ Cranm. ; 
‘modest,’ Gen.; ‘comely,’ Rhem. 
A lover of hosp.| So Bish., and also Auth. 
in Tit. i. 8: ‘given to hospitality,’ Auth. 
(here) ; ‘holdynge hosp.,’ Wicl. ; ‘harbe- 
rous,’—a noticeable transl., Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Gen. ; aman of hosp.,’ Rhem. 
3. Fierce over wine] ‘ Given to wine,’ 
Auth., Wicl. and sim. other Vv. except 
Tynd., ‘drunken ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘a 
dronkharde.’ The marginal note shows 
that our last translators saw correctly the 
meaning of the word, though they have 
not expressed it. 
But, etc.| Auth. prefixes *‘not greedy 
of filthy lucre.’ Forbearing| 


‘Patient,’ Auth.; ‘temperate, Wiel. ; 
‘gentle,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
“styll,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ modest,’ Rhem. 
Averse to contention] So Tit. iii. 2; ‘not 
a brawler,’ Auth. ; ‘not ful of chidynge,’ 
Wiclif; ‘abhorring fightynge, Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish., and sim. Cov. (‘abh. 
stryfe ’). A lover of money] ‘ Covet- 
ous,’ Auth., and sim. all other Vy. It is 
better to keep ‘ covetous’ for tAcovéxrns. 

4. His] Auth. not in italics. 

5. But] So Cov. (both), Rhem.: ‘ for,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. 

6. New convert] Sim. Wicl., ‘newe 
conuerted to the feith:’ ‘novice,’ Auth. ; 
‘young skoler,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran. Gen., 
Bish. ; ‘neophyte,’ Rhem. 

Besotted with] ‘Lifted up with,’ Auth. ; 
‘he swel,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. ; ‘be puft 
up,’ Cov., Bish. The idea of a stupid, 
insensate pride ought to be conveyed in 
translation ; see notes. 

Judgment| So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., 
Rhem.: ‘condemnation,’ Auth., Genev., 
Bish.; ‘dome,’ Wicl. 

7. Also from] ‘of, Auth.; the word 
‘moreover,’ Auth., may be properly as- 
signed to dé, which, as has been observed 
several times in the notes (comp. on ver. 
10), often appears to revert to its primary 
meaning. 

8. Deacons, etc.| Similarly Rhem.: 
‘likewise must the deacons be,’ Author. ; 


Cnap. III. 9—16. PLEO #Y. 


231 
given to much wine, not greedy of filthy Iucre ;. 9 holding the mys- 
tery of the faith in a pure conscience. “ And let these also first 
be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be under no 
charge. " The women in like manner must be grave, not slander- 
ers, sober, faithful in all thmgs. ” Let the deacons be the hus- 
bands of one wife, ruling their children well and their own houses. 
® For they that have served well as deacons obtain for themselves 
a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ 
Jesus. 

% These things write I unto thee, though I hope to come unto 
thee somewhat quickly ; “ but if I should tarry long, that thou 
mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of 
God, which truly is the church of the living God, the pillar and 
basis of the truth. 7” And confessedly great is the mystery of god- 


‘mynisters,’ Cov. (both), Cran., Bish. ; 
the rest, ‘deacons,’ either with (7Z'ynd.) 
or without ( Wiel., Gen.) the article. The 
transl. of aicxpoxepde?s is retained as be- 
ing that of all the Vv., except Wiel. 

10. If they be, etc.] Similarly Cov., ¢ if 
they be blameless :’ ‘ being found blame- 
less, Auth.; ‘if they be found,’ etc., 
Tynd., Gen.; ‘being bl.,’ Bish. ; ‘hav- 
ing no crime,’ Rhem. Serve 
as deacons] ‘ Use the office of a deacon,’ 
Anth. This periphrasis mightbe avoid- 
ed by ‘minister,’ asin all the other Vv.; 
we seem, however, to require in ver. 13 
an allusion to the office ‘nominatim.’ 

11. The women, etc.| Sim. Wicl., Rhem., 
Cov. (Test.), after Vulg.: ‘even so must 
their wives be,’ Auth. and all the remain- 
ing Vv. 

12. Well] So, in the same place, all 
Vy.: Auth. places the adverb at the end 
of the verse. Where there is no liability 
to mistake, it seems better to keep, as far 
as possible, the order of the Greek 

13. Served well as, etc.| ‘Used the 
office of a deacon well,’ Awih. 

Obtain for] ‘Purchase to themselves,’ 
Auth., Rhem.; ‘get themselves,’ Tynd. 
and all the remaining Vy. 


14. Though I hope] ‘Hoping,’ Auth., 
and similarly all other Vv. 

Somewhat quickly] ‘ Shortly,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ very 
shortly,’ Gen.; ‘ quickly,’ Rhem. 

15. Should tarry] ‘ Tarry,’ Auth., and 
all Vy. Which truly] 
‘Which,’ Auth. and all other Vv. except : 
Wicl., ‘that is.’ 

16. Confessedly| ‘Without controver- 
sy,’ Auth.; ‘ without naye,’ Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Gen. ; ‘without doute,’ Cranm., 
Bish. Who] ** God,’ Auth. 
Was manifested] So Rhem.: ‘ was mani- 
fest,’ Auth. ; ‘shewed,’ Wic/. and remain- 
ing Vv. We may here briefly 
remark that the six concluding clauses 
of this verse may be arranged stichomet- 
rically in the following way : — 


“Os epavepddsyn év capt, 
*Edicawsn ev Tvevmartt, 
“QO3n ayyéeras * 
"Exnpvxan ev edveoww, 
*Emiatevan év Kéonw, 
*AveAhupan év ddkn. 


Without urging too strongly the metri- 
cal character of the clauses, it would still 


i TIMOTHY. 


232 Cuar, IV. 1—4 


liness ; ‘‘ Who was. manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, 
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the 
world; received up into glory.” 


CHAPTER IV. 


Howezit the Spirit saith expressly, that in the latter times some 
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and 
doctrines of devils, 2 through the hypocrisy of speakers of lies, men 
bearing a brand on their own conscience, % forbidding to marry, 
and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created for 
them that believe and have full knowledge of the truth to partake 
of with thanksgiving. 4 For every creature of God is good, and 


seem that the supposition advanced in 
notes zn Joc. does not appear wholly with- 
out plausibility. Alford (in loc.) objects 
to this view, but appears clearly to lean 
to it in his note on 2 Tim. ii. 11. 


Cuapter IV. 1. Howbeit] Similarly 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘but:’ see notes ; 
‘now,’ Auth., Bish. ; the remaining Vv. 
omit. Saith] So Wiel., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.: ‘speaketh,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. All the Vv. except Rhem. 
preserve the order of verb and adverb 
adopted in the text, and apparently cor- 
rectly ; the slight emphasis is thus re- 
tained on fyras : comp. notes on 2 Thess. 
iii. 8. Depart] So Auth. and all Vv. 

2. Through the hyp., etc.| Similarly as 
to év émoxp., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
‘which speak false thorow hyp. ;’ wev- 
SoA. is, however, by some (Wicl. and 
appy. Gen.) referred to Samoviwy: Auth., 
‘speaking lies in hyp.,’ is ambiguous. 
The above, it must be said, is a some- 
what lax translation of év; it seems, 
however, positively required by the id- 
iom of our language. Whether we con- 
nect év dmoxp. with aroarhoovta Or mpo- 
céxovres, it seems scarcely English to 
say ‘ by the hypocrisy.’ 


Men bearing, etc.| ‘ Having their con- 
science seared with a hot iron,’ Auth., 
and similarly all Vv. except Wicl., ‘have 
their conscience corrupt,’ and Rhem., 
which omits ‘hot iron.’ The insertion 
of men in the text seems to make the 
construction a little more clear. 

3. Created] So Rhen., similarly Wicl., 

‘made:’ ‘hath created,’ Auth. and all 
other Vv. For them that, ete. 
‘To be received with thanksgiving of 
them,’ Auth., and similarly all other Vv. 
except Wicl. ‘ with doyinge of thankis to,’ 
and Rhem., which mainly accords with 
text, ‘toreceaue with thankes-giuing for 
the faithful and them that have knowen,’ 
ete. Itis very difficult to preserve both 
the correct translation of the words and 
the order of the original ; the latter must 
apparently here be sacrificed. 
Have full knowledge| ‘ Know,’ Auth. and 
all other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem., which expresses the perf. ‘ have 
known,’ Vulgate ‘ cognoverunt.’ The 
transl. of moots is perhaps not perfectly 
satisfactory, but any change will involve 
an insertion of the article before the next 
words, which is certainly very undesira- 
ble; see notes. 

4. Is to be] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 


Car. IV. 5—10. 1TIMOTHY. 933 


nothing is to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; 5 for 
it is sanctified by the word of God and supplication. 

6 If thou settest forth these things to the brethren, thou wilt be 
a good minister of Christ Jesus, being nourished up in the words of 
faith and of the good doctrine, of which thou hast been a disciple. 
7 But eschew profane and old-wives’ fables ; and exercise thyself 
rather unto godliness. ® For the exercise of the body is profitable 
unto a little, but godliness is profitable unto all things, as it hath a 
promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 


9 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptation. 


and similarly Gen., ‘oght to be:’ simply 
‘to be,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 

5. Supplication] ‘Prayer, Auth. and 
all Vv.; it seems, however, necessary, 
as éyrevéts occurs only twice in the N. T., 
here and ch. ii. 1 (see notes in loc.), to 
mark it by a special and uniform trans- 
lation. 

6. Settest forth] Similarly Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), ‘puttinge forth, and Rhem., 
‘proposing :’ Auth. and remaining Vv., 
‘put the brethren in remembrance of,’ 
which from the examples of dmoriSec- 
Sat tw cited by Krebs and Loesner (see 
_ notes), seems certainly too weak. The 
translation ‘if thou,’ etc. is perhaps not 
quite so critically correct as ‘by setting 
forth,’ ete., or ‘in setting forth,’ etc. (see 
notes on ch. iv. 16), but may still be left 
unchanged, as it cannot be termed defi- 
nitely ¢nexact. Wilt be] 
* Shalt be,’ Auth. and all Vy. 

Christ Jesus] * * Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 
Being nourished] So Cov. ('Test.): ‘nour- 
ished,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘which hast 
bene n.,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
The good| So Rhem.: ‘ good,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vy. The article ought, 
perhaps, also to be inserted before ‘ faith’ 
(ris tlorews), but it would tend to give 
it an objective meaning, which does not 
seem desirable; see notes. 
Of which, etc.| ‘ Whereunto thou hast at- 
tained,’ Auth., and sim. Cov. (Test.), 
30 


W For 


Rhem. ; ‘has gete,’ Wiel. ; ‘which thou 
hast continually followed,’ Tynd., Cran., 
Gen., Bish.; ‘hast folowed hither to,’ 
Cov. 

7. Eschew| So Wicl. and Cov. (Test.) : 
‘refuse,’ Auth.; ‘avoid,’ Rhem.; ‘ cast 
away,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
Exercise, etc.| So Auth., Tynd. omits 
both ‘and’ and ‘rather;’ Cran., Bish. 
only the former; Gen. and them. only 
the latter. The transl. of Cov., ‘ as for 
ungoostly and, etc., cast them awaye, 
but, etc.,’ is good, but in thus preserving 
the second 6¢ it misses the first. The 
punctuation of Lachm. and Tisch., who 
place a period after mapa:rod, is perhaps 
not an improvement on the ordinary 
colon: the antithesis between the two 
members ought not to be too much ob- 
scured. 

8. The exercise, etc.| ‘ Bodily exercise,” 
Auth., and similarly all other Vv.: it 
seems desirable to try to retain the arti- 
cle, ‘the bodily exercise these teachers 
affect to lay such stress upon.’ 

As it hath] ‘Having,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Bish., Rhemish; ‘that hath,’ Wiclif; 
‘which hath,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 

9. Faithful is the] ‘ This is a faithful,’ 
Auth. ; ‘this is a sure s.,’ Tynd., Coverd. 
(Test. ‘ faithful’), Cran., Gen.; ‘a trewe 
word, Wiel. ; ‘a faithful saying,’ Rhem. 

10. Looking to this] ‘ Therefore,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 


234 IIMO THY. Cuar. FV. 10—16. 
looking to this we both labor and suffer reproach, because we have 
placed our hope on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, 
especially of believers. 

11 These things command and teach. ™ Let no man despise thy 
youth ; but become an example unto the believers, in word, in 
conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. ™ Till I come give attention 
to the reading, to the exhortation, to the doctrine. ™“ Neglect not 
the gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy 
with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. ™ These things 
practise, in these things be occupied,—that thy advance may be 
manifest to all. 3° Give heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine ; 
continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and 


them that hear thee. 


‘and in this thing; Rhem., ‘to this pur- 
pose.’ ; Have placed, etc.] 
‘ We trust,’ Auth. ; ‘we hopen in,’ Wicl., 
Cov. (both) ; ‘ we beleve,’ Tynd., Cran. ; 
‘have sure hope in,’ Gen. ; ‘have hopen 
in,’ Bish. Believers} As 
Auth. in ver. 12: here ‘those that be- 
lieve,’ with Zynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., 
Bish. ; a translation which is perhaps a 
little too emphatic for the simple anar- 
throus moray. ‘ Faithful’ ( Wiel., Rhem.) 
is by very far the more usual translation 
in Auth. ; there are cases, however (e. g. 
ch. v. 16, vi. 2), where perspicuity seems 
to require the change. It is noticeable, 
too, that mozol (per se, not év Xp. "Ine., 
Eph. i. 1, etc.) in these Epp. (as our 
Translators appear to have clearly felt) 
seems to have become a more definite 
expression for ‘believers,’ 7. e. Christians, 
and to have almost displaced of morevov- 
res, the expression which so greatly pre- 
dominates in the apostle’s earlier Epis- 
tles. 

12. Become] ‘Be thou,’ Auth., Wicl., 
Cov., Bish. ; ‘be,’ Tynd. and remaining 
Vy. Unto] So Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen.: ‘of,’ Auth. Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., Bish. Conduct] 
‘ Conversation,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 


except Wicl., ‘lyuynge.’? Change made 
only to obviate a possible misunderstand- 
ing owing to the preceding ‘ word.’ 
Love] So all Vv. except Auth., Rhem., 
‘ charity ;’ see notes on ch.i.5 (Zransi.). 
Auth. inserts * ‘in spirit’ after ‘ charity.’ 

13. Attention] ‘ Attendance,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘take tent ;’ 
‘ geue hede,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ attend unto,’ 
Rhem. The reading, ete.] 
Auth. and all Vv. omit the articles. 

14. Through] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Bish.: ‘by, Auth. and remaining Vv. 

15. These things, etc,| Similarly Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., ‘these thynges exer- 
cise:’ ‘meditate upon these things,’ 
Auth. ; ‘thenke thou these thingis,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘think upon,’ Coverd.. (Test.) ; 
‘these doe thou meditate,’ Rhem. It 
seems best here to maintain the order of 
the original: so also Syr., Vulg. 
In these things, etc.| ‘ Give thyself wholly 
to them,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Rhem., ‘ be in,’ and Cov. (Test.), 
‘be diligente in, —a good transl., though 
perhaps a little more periphrastic than 
that in the text. To ail] So 
Auth.,— though, as Marg. shows, it read 
ev TaoW. 


16. Give] ‘Take,’ Auth. and the other 


Cuar. V. 1--6. 1 ee TILLY... 


235 
CHAPTER V. 


Do not sharply rebuke an elder, but exhort him as a father ; 
the younger men as brethren ; the elder women as mothers; the 
younger as sisters, in all purity. % Pay due regard to widows that 
are widows indeed. 4 If, however, any widow have children or 
grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own 

family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable before 
God. 5 But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, hath turned 
her hopes toward God, and abideth in her supplications and her 
prayers night and day: © but she that liveth riotously is dead while 


Vv. except Rhem., ‘attend to.’ 

Save both] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and 
sim. Wicl.: ‘both save,’ Auth., Bish. ; 
the remaining Vv. omit the first xa in 
translation. 


.Cuarter V. 1. Do not sharply, etc.] 

‘Rebuke not,’ Auth. and all Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘ blame thou not.’ ‘ Reprimand’ 
would perhaps be the most exact trans- 
lation. Exhort] So Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. : ‘intreat,’ Auth.; 
‘beseche,’ Wriel., Rhem. It does not 
appear clear why the Auth. made this 
change. 

2. In] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish., 
Rhem.: ‘with, Auth. and the remaining 
Vy. It may be observed that in the 
original edition of Auth. (so also Wicl., 
Cov.) there is no comma after sisters ; 
see notes. 

8. Pay due regard] ‘ Honor,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. 

4. If, however] ‘ But if,’ Auth., Wicl., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘and if, Cov. (Test.) ; 
the rest ‘if’ only. Have] So 
Auth. and all Vv. except Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), which, probably following the 
Latin ‘ habet,’ use the indicative ; so Co- 
nyb. in loc. This, however, does not 
appear critically exact; see Latham, 
Eng. Lang. § 537 (ed. 4), and compare 


notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14. The English 
and Greek idioms seem here to be differ- 
ent. Grandchildren] ‘ Nephews,’ 
Auth, and all other Vv. except Wicel., 
‘children of sons;’ Coverdale (Test.), 
‘chyldes chyldren.’ Though archaisms 
as such are removed from this transla- 
tion, yet here a change seems desirable, 
as the use of the antiquated term ‘ neph- 
ews’ (nepotes) is so very likely to be 
misunderstood. Towards, etc.] 
“At home,’ Auwth.; ‘rule their owne 
houses godly,’ Tynd., and sim. the other 
Vv. This is acceptable] ‘ That 
is * good and acceptable,’ Auth. 

5. But] So Cov. (both), Rhem., ‘now,’ 
Auth.; ‘and,’ Wicel., Bish.; omitted in 
Tynd., Cran., Gen. ; 

Hath turned, etc.] ‘ Trasteth in,’ Auth. . 
‘ putteth her trust in,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. ; ‘hopeth in,’ Bish. The force of 
éAmiCw with ém and the accus. should not 
be left unnoticed ; see notes on ch. iv. 
10. Abideth] ‘Continueth,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. except Wicl., ‘ be bisie 
in” A somewhat marked translation 
seems required by mpoouéeve: with a dat. 
Her suppl., etc.| Auth. and all the Vv. 
leave both articles unnoticed. 

6. Liveth riotously| ‘Liveth.in pleas- 
ure,’ Auth. and other Vv. except Wiel., 
‘is lyuynge in delicis;’ Cov. (Test.), 


1TIMOTHY. Cuap. V. 7—13; 


236 


, she liveth. 7 And these things command, that they may be irre- 
proachable. * But if any one provide not for his own, and specially 
for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse 
than an unbeliever. 

* Let no one be placed on the list as a widow under threescore 
years old, the wife of one husband, ” being well reported of in 
good works; if she ever brought up children, if she entertained 
strangers, if she washed the saints’ feet, if she relieved the afflicted, 
if she followed after every good work. ™ But younger widows re- 
fuse: for when they have come to wax wanton against Christ their 
will is to marry; ” bearing about a judgment that they broke their 


first. faith. 


‘that hath pleasures ;’ ‘is in delicious- 
ness,’ Rhem. 

7. Command] So all Vv. except Auth., 
‘ give in charge,’ Trreproachable| 
‘Blameless,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem., sim. 
Cov., ‘ without blame,’ Cov. (Test.), ‘un- 
blameable;’ Wicl., ‘without repreef;’ 
Tynd., Genev., ‘without faut ;’ Cranm., 
‘without rebuke.’ See notes on ch. iii. 
2 (Transl.). 

8. Any one| ‘ Any,’ Auth. 

Unbeliever| ‘ Infidel,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘an unfaithful man.’ 

9. Let no one, etc.| ‘Let not a widow 
be taken into the number,’ Auth. ; some- 
what similarly to text, Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen., ‘let no widow be chosen ;” except 
that they appear to miss the fact that 
xhpa is a predicate. Old} So 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. ; the ar- 
chaism is not changed, being perfectly 
intelligible. The wife] 
‘ Having been the w.,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘as 
was,’ ete., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
Husband] So Wicel., Cov. (Test.) : ‘man,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. 

10. In] So all the Vv. except Auth., 
‘ for.’ Ever brought up| 
‘Have brought up,’ Auth. ; change only 
made to endeavor to preserve the force 
of the aorist. Wicl. alone omits the 
‘have.’ Entertained| ‘ Have 


% Moreover they learn withal to be idle, gomg round 


lodged,’ Auth., Cran., Bish., and simil. 
Cov. (Test.) ; ‘bene liberall to,’ Tynd., 
Gen. ; ‘bene harberous,’ Cov., sim. Wiel., 
“resceyued to herborwe.’ 

Washed] ‘ Have washed,’ Auth. 
Relieved| ‘ Have relieved,’ Auth. 
Followed after] Similarly Wicl., Rhem., 
‘folowid,’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘ followed 
upon:’ ‘diligently followed,’ Author. ; 
‘continually given unto,’ Tynd. and re- 
maining Vy. 

11. Younger] So Wicl. : ‘the younger,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

Have come, etc.| ‘Have begun,’ Auth. and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘han done 
lecheri ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘are waxen wan- 
ton;’ Rhem., ‘ shall be w.’ 

Their will is, etc.| ‘they will marry,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. except Wicl., ‘ wolen 
be wedded.’ Change to prevent a con- 
fusion with the simple future ; see notes. 

12, Bearing about, etc.] ‘ Having dam- 
nation,’ Auth. and all Vy. 

That\ ‘ Because,’ Auth. and all Vy. 
Broke] Similarly Tynd., Coverd., Gen., 
‘have broken:’ ‘they have cast off,’ 
Auth., sim. Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; 
‘han made void,’ Wicl., Rhem. 

13. Moreover] ‘ And withal they learn,’ 
Auth. Going round| Simi- 
larly (though not in respect of construc- 
tion) Tynd., Cran., Gen., ‘learn to goo 


CHar. V. 14—21. 1TTIMOTHY. 


237 
from house to house ; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busy- 
bodies, speaking things which they ought not. ™ I desire then that 
younger widows marry, bear children, guide the house, give none 
occasion to the adversary for reviling. ™ For some have already 
turned themselves aside after Satan. “If any [man or] woman 
that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the 
church be burdened, that it may relieve them that are widows 
indeed. 

“ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. ™ For 
the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox while he igs tread- 
ing out the corn ; and, the laborer ¢s worthy of his hire. ” Against 
an elder receive not an accusation, except on the authority of two 
or three witnesses. * Them that sin rebuke before all, that the 
rest also may have fear. ” I solemnly charge thee before God, and 


from,’ etc.: ‘wandering, Auth., simil. 
Bish. ; ‘runne about,’ Coverd. All Vv. 
except Auth. connect paySdvovow with 
meptepxomevan. 

14. Desire then] ‘ Will therefore,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. Younger widows] 
So Wicl.: ‘the younger women,’ Auth., 
and all the other Vv. except Rhem., ‘ the 
yonger.’ For reviling| ‘To 
speak reproachfully,’ Auth. [in Marg., 
‘for their railing’]; ‘to speake evill,’ 
Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Riem. ; 
‘slanderously, Bish. Very singularly 
Wicl., ‘because of cursed thing,’ mis- 
understanding the Vulg. ‘ maledicti gra- 
tid.’ 

15. Have already, etc.] ‘ Are already 
turned,’ Auth., and similarly all other 
Vv. It seems, however, desirable to 
retain the medial force which appears to 
be involved in the passive form ééerp. ; 
see notes on ch. iv. 20, and 2 Tim. iv. 4, 
The aorist cannot here be translated with- 
out inserting ‘ have ;’ the Greek idiom 
permits the union of aor. with #5n «.7.A., 
the English does not; see notes on ch. i. 
20 (Transl.). 

16. Burdened] So Rhem., ‘be charg- 


ed:’ Auth. and all the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘be greved.’ 

18. An ox, etc.] ‘The ox that,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. except Wicl. and Coverd. 
(Test.), which retain the bare participle. 
Hire] So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘reward,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Cov. (Test.), 
‘wages.’ 

19. Except] ‘But,’ Auth. and all Vv. ; 
the strong formula éxrds ei wh perhaps 
requires a little more distinctness. 

On the authority of | All the Vv. appy. 
with a similar meaning, ‘under ;’ Auth., 
alone, ‘ before,’ but in margin ‘ under.’ 

20. The rest, etc.| So Rhem., and sim- 
ilarly Cov. (Test.): ‘others also may 
fear,’ Auth., and sim, all remaining Vv. 

21. Solemnly charge] ‘ Charge,’ Auth. ; 
‘testifie,” Tynd. and all other Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘preie before.’ The translation 
‘adjure,’ Conyb. and Hows., is better 
reserved for épxi¢w, Mark v. 7, Acts xix. 
13, 1 Thess. v. 27. Christ 
Jesus] *‘ The Lord Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 
Forejudgment] So Ccv. (Test.), and sim. 
Wicl., Rhem., ‘prejudice:’ ‘ without 
preferring one before another,’ Auth, 
sim. Gen.; ‘hasty judgment,’ Tynd., 


938 1 TIMOTHY. Cuar. V..22—VI. 2. 
Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things 
-without forejudgment, doing nothing by partiality. ™” Lay hands 
hastily on no man, nor yet share in other men’s sins. Keep THy- 
SELF pure. ™ Be no longer a waterdrinker, but use a little wine 
for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. ™“ Some men’s 
sins are openly manifest, going before to judgment ; and some men 
they rather follow after. * In like manner the coop works also 
of some are openly manifest; and they that are otherwise cannot 


be hid. 


CHAPT EE Va. 


Let as many as are under the yoke as bond-servants count their 
own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and His doc- 
trine be not blasphemed. # They again that have believing mas- 
ters, let them not slight them, because they are brethren; but the 
rather serve them, because believing and beloved are they who are 


partakers of their good service. These things teach and exhort. 


Cov., and sim. Cran., ‘ hastiness of j.’ 
There seems no reason for rejecting the 
genuine English translation adopted by 
Cov. (Test.); ‘forejudgment’ is also 
used by Spenser. 

22. Hastily] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘sud- 

denly,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Wiclif, ‘anoon;’ Zhem., ‘ lightly.’ 
Nor yet, etc.| ‘Neither be partaker of,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
‘comyne thou with;’ Coverd. (Test.), 
‘be partener of ;’ Rhem., ‘communicate 
with.’ 

23. Be no longer, etc.] ‘Drink no lon- 
ger water,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
cept Wicl., ‘ drynke water,’ Cov. (Test.), 
‘drink no more w. ;’ Rhem., ‘ drink not 
yet w.,’ not a very felicitous translation. 

24, Openly manifest] ‘Open before- 
hand,’ Auth. and other Vy. except Wiel., 
‘opene befor;’ Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., 
‘manifest ;’ Cov. ‘ open.’ 

Rather follow] ‘Follow,’ Auth.: Coverd. 
(Test.), is the only one of the older trans- 
lators who has preserved(though not quite 


correctly) the xaf; ‘and the (synnes) of 
some do followe also.’ 

25. In like manner] ‘ Likewise also,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., 
‘and also;’ Rhem., ‘in like manner 
also.’ Works also] ‘ Works,’ 
Auth. Openly manifest] 
‘Manifest beforehand,’ Auth. 


Cuapter VI. 1. As many as are] 
‘As many servants as are,’ Auth. and all 
the Vv. (sim. Wiel., Cov. (Test.), ‘ what- 
ever servants are’) except Phem., ‘ who- 
soever are servantes under yoke.’ 

2. They again] ‘And they,’ Auth., 
Wicl., Bish.: ‘but they,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.; the remaining Vv. omit the par- 
ticle. In a case like the present, the 
omission in translation is certainly to be 
preferred to ‘and,’ as the contrast be- 
tween the two classes, those who have 
heathen, and those who have Christian 
masters is thus less obscured, In such 
cases the translation of 5€ is very trying ; 
‘but’ is too strong, ‘and’ is inexact ; 


Cuap. VI. 3—7. 


-ETIMOTHY. 


239 


3 If any man is a teacher of other doctrine, and assenteth not to 
sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the 
doctrine which is according -to godliness; 4 He is besotted with 
pride, yet knowing nothing, but ailing about questions and strifes 
of words, whereof cometh envy, contentions, railings, evil surmis- 
ings, © obstinate contests of men corrupted in their mind and desti- 
~ tute of the truth, supposing that godliness is a means of gain. © But 
‘godliness with contentment Is a meansof great gain. 7 For we brought 


omission, or some turn like that in the 
text, seems the only way of conveying 
the exact force of the original. 

Slight] ‘Despise,’ Auth. and all Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘ contemn.’ 

The rather] So Gen., Rhem., and simil. 
Wicl., ‘more serve,’ Tynd., ‘so moche 
the rather:’ Auth. and remaining Vv., 
‘rather.’ Serve them] So 
-Wicl., Cov. (Test.), and Rhem. (omit 
‘them ’): ‘do them service,’ Auth. ; ‘do 
service,’ Zynd. and remaining Vv. 
Believing, etc.| Similarly Wicl., Ihem. : 
‘they are faithful and beloved, partakers 
of the benefit,’ Auth. ; ‘they are beliey- 
ing and beloved and partakers of the 
ben.,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (‘faith- 
ful’) Bish. ; ‘they are faithful and bel., 
for they are, etc.,’Cov. (Test.). 

3. Is a teacher, etc.| ‘ Teach otherwise,’ 

Auth., Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Bish. ; 
‘folowe other doctrine,’ Cran. ; ‘ teache 
other doctrine,’ Gen. ; see notes on ch. i. 
8. The e? Tis, as the context here shows 
(comp. ch. i. 3), contemplates a case ac- 
tually in existence ; we use then in Engl. 
the indicative after ‘if}’ see Latham, 
Engl. Lang. § 537 (ed. 4). 
Assenteth] ‘ Consent,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; 
‘accordith,’ Wicl.; ‘agreeth,’ Coverd. 
(both) ; ‘is not content,’ Tynd., Gen. ; 
‘enclyne,’ Cran. Sound] So 
Auth. everywhere else in these Epp.: 
Auth. and all Vv. except Rhem. (‘sound’) 
here adopt ‘ wholesome.’ 

4. Besotted with pride| ‘ He is proud,’ 
Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘ puft 
ap,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. ; see 


notes on ch. iii. 6. Yet 
knowing] ‘ Knowing,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Bish., Rhem. ; ‘and knoweth,’ Vynd. and 
the remaining Vv. except Wiel., ‘and 
ean nothing, —a noticeable expression. 
Ailing] ‘Doting,’ Auth. Bish. ; “lang- 
wischith,’ Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘is not sounde,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘wasteth his braynes,’ 
Tynd. and the remaining Vv. ° 
Contentions] * ‘ Strife,’ Auth. 

5. Obstinate contests] * ‘ Perverse dis- 

putings,’ Auth. Corrupted 
in their mind} So Rhem., and similarly 
Wicl.: ‘of corrupt minds,’ Auwth., Bish. ; 
‘with corrupt minds,’ Tynd., Genev.: 
“as have, ete.’ Cov., Cran. ; ‘ are corrupt- 
minded,’ Cov. (Test.). 
Godliness, etc.| ‘ Gain is godliness,’ Auth., 
and similarly all the other Vy. (‘lucre 
is godliness,’ Tynd., Cran., Genev., etc.) 
except only Cov. (both), who preserves 
the correct order ‘ godliness is lucre.’ 
This is not the only instance in which 
this very able translator stands alone in 
accuracy and good scholarship. Though 
he used Tyndale’s translation as his basis, 
his care in revision still entitles him to 
be considered as a separate authority of 
great importance ; see Bagster’s Hexapla, 
p. 73. His Duoglott Testament (Test.), 
being from the Lat., has not the same 
claim on attention. Gain| 
After this word, Auth. inserts * ‘from 
such withdraw thyself. 

7. The] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish.: ‘this,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov.(Test.), 
Rhem. Can also] ‘ Can,’ 
Auth, and the other Vv. The transla- 


240 1 TIMOTHY. Cuar. VI. 8—12, 


nothing into the world, and itis certain we can also carry nothing out. 
8 If however we have food and raiment, therewith we shall be con- 
tent. 9% But they that desire to be rich fall into temptation and a 
snare, and zmto many foolish and hurtful lusts, the which drown 
men in destruction and perdition. 19 For the love of money is the 
root of all evils; which while some were coveting after, they erred 
from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 

1 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after 
righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness of heart. 
® Strive the good strife of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto 


tion of Tynd., Cov., is here somewhat 
curious, —‘and it is a playne case.’ 

8. If, however, we have] Somewhat 

sim. Cran., ‘ but when we have ;’ so also 
Tynd., Cov., Gen., omitting ‘but,’ ‘and 
having; Auth. ‘but having,’ Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), hem. Auth. thus stands alone 
in itstranslation of 6é, ‘ and.’ 
Therewith, etc.| ‘Let us be therewith 
content,’ <Auth., Tynd., Coverd. (both), 
Genev.; ‘we schulen be,’ Wicl.; ‘we 
must be,’ Cran. ; ‘we are,’ Rhem. 

9. Desire] ‘ Will,’ Auth. and all other 

Vy. ; see notes on ch. v. 14. 
Into many| So Auth. and all the other 
Vv.: Cov. (Test.) and Rhem. omit ‘into.’ 
This insertion of the preposition, where 
not expressed in the text, is sometimes 
very undesirable (comp. John iii. 5, and 
see Blunt, Lect. on Par. Priest, p. 56) ; 
here, however, it would seem permissi- 
ble; we:pocudy and raryida thus stand in 
closer union (see notes), and the relative 
becomes better associated with its princi- 
pal antecedent. The which] 
Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ye whych do,’ 
marking the force of the airwes, though 
in the Lat. it is only ‘que:’ ‘ which,’ 
Auth. and all Vy. 

10. Were coveting] ‘ Coveted,’ Auth., 
and very similarly Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Bish. ; ‘coveting, Wicl.; ‘lusting,’ Cov. 
(Test.). The sentence is somewhat awk- 
ward, but seems preferable to the diluted 
translation, ‘and some through covet- 


ing it, have, etc.,’ as Conyb. and others, 
Erred| So all Vv. except Auth., Coverd. 
(Test.), and Rhem., which insert ‘ have.” 
Perhaps the translation ‘wandered or 
strayed away’ (comp. notes on Tit. iii. 3) 
may be thought a little preferable. 

11. And follow] So Author., Bish., 
Rhem.; the extreme awkwardness of 
‘but,’ so closely following ‘but thou,’ 
may justify this inexactness. Wiel. and 
Cov. (Test.) boldly retain ‘but’ in both 
eases; Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 
omit the second. Patience} 
So Auth. and all Vy. This is the regu- 
lar translation of émoyov) in the N. T., 
where it occurs above thirty times. The 
only exceptions to this translation are in 
Rom. ii. 7, 2 Cor. 1.6, 2 Thess. ais: 
On the true meaning see notes on 2 Tim. 


ii. 10, and on Tit. iii. 2. 


Meekness of heart] *‘ Meekness,’ Auth. 
12. Strive the good strife] Similarly 
Wicl., a good strife :’ Auth. and all other 
Vv. (except Cov. (both), ‘a good, ete.’) 
have ‘ fight the good fight.’ The transl. 
in the text is undoubtedly not satisfacto- 
ry, butis perhaps a little more exact than 
that of Auth. Wert called] 
‘ Art * also called,’ Auth. 
Thou confessedst| ‘ Hast confessed,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘hast knowleched ;’ Zthem. ‘hast 
conf.’ The] ‘A,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
Confession] So Rhem. : ‘ profession,’ Auth, 
and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., 


Cuap. VI. 13—17. lt TIMOTHY. 94t 


thou wert called, and thou confessedst the good confession before 
many witnesses. ™ I charge thee before God, who preserveth alive 
all things, and before Christ Jesus, who under Pontius Pilate bore 
witness to the good confession, “That thou keep the command- 
ment without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our 
Lord Jesus Christ : ® which in His own seasons He shall show, who 
as the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of 
lords ; * Who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproach- 
able; whom never man saw, nor can see: to whom Je honor and 


eternal might, Amen. 


” Charge them that are rich in this world not to be highminded, 


Cov. (Test.), ‘knowledge.’ 

13. Charge thee] ‘Give thee charge,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘command.’ 
Before] So Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.: 
‘in the sight of,‘ Auth. and remaining 
Vv. It certainly here seems desirable 
to preserve a uniform translation of évd- 
mov; compare notes. 

Preserveth alive] * ¢ Quickeneth,’ Auth. 
Under| So all the Vv. except Auth. and 
Cov. (Test.), which adopt the local ‘ be- 
fore.’ Bore witness to| 
‘Witnessed,’ Auth., Bish. (‘profession’) ; 
‘yielded a witnessing,’ Wicl.; ‘ gave 
testimony,’ Rhem.; Tynd. and the re- 
maining Vy., ‘ witnessed a good wit- 
ness,’ or ‘ witnessing.’ The] 
‘A, Auth. and all Vv. 

14. The] So all the Vy. except Auth., 
Gen., ‘ this.’ Without 
reproach| Similarly Wiel., ‘with out re- 
pref:’ ‘unrebukeable’ Author., Tynd., 
Cranm., Genev., Bish. ; ‘ unreproveable,’ 
Cov.; ‘unblameable,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; 
‘blameless,’ Ahem. The connection of 
the adjectives with éytoAyy is perhaps 
made a little clearer by the change: so 
Syr., ‘without spot, without blemish ;’ 
comp. notes. 

15. His own] ‘ His,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Tynd., Gen., ‘ when the 
tyme is come ;’ Rhem., ‘ due.’ 

Seasons] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘ times,’ Auth. 


31 


and the remaining Vv. except Tynd., 
Gen. (see above) ; Cov., ‘tyme.’ 
Who is] So Auth., following all the older 
Vv. except Coverd. (Test.), which, how- 
ever, retains the order, ‘whom shall 
shewe at hys seasons the blessed,’ and 
Wicl., Rhem., which put the nominative 
first. It would seem that the insertion 
of ‘who is,’ is here a far less evil than 
the loss of order. Conybeare changes 
the active into pass., ‘be made manifest 
(%) by the only, ete.,”—a diluted trans- 
lation that wholly falls short of the maj- 
esty of the original, 

16. Alone] ‘ Only,’ Auth. 
Immortality] Wicl. alone has the notice- 
able translation ‘ undeedlynes.’ > 
Light) So Wiel., Tynd., Rhem.: ‘the 
light,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
cept Cov., ‘a light.’ 
Unapproachable| Similarly Cov. (Test.), 
‘not approachable ;’ Lhem., ‘ not acces- 
sible:’? ‘which no man may approach 
unto,’ Auth.; ‘to whiche no man mai 
come, Wiel.; ‘that no man can at- 
tayne,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., and Genev., 
Bish, (‘ att. unto’). 
Never man saw] So Tynd., Gen.: ‘no 
man hath seen,’ Auth., Cov., Cran., Bish.; 
“no man saie,’ Wiel. ; ‘no man dyd euer 
se,” Cov. ( Test.) Eternal 
might] ‘Power everlasting,’ Auth. and 
all Vv. except Wicl. ‘ withouten end.’ 

17. Not to be] ‘That they be not,’ 


242 


DEIMO THY. 


Cuar. VI. 18—21,. 


nor to place their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but in God, 
who giveth us all things richly for enjoyment ; * that they do good, 
that they be rich in good works, be free in distributing, ready to 
communicate ; ” laying up in store for themselves a good founda- 
tion against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true 


life. 


” O Timothy, keep the trust committed to thee, avoiding the 


profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely-called knowledge ; 
1 which some professing have gone wide in aim concerning the 


faith. Grace be with you. 


Auth. Slight change, designed to obvi- 
ate the supposition that the original is 
va wh x. 7. A. The transition to the 
positive side of the exhortation in ver. 18 
thus also becomes slightly more telling 
and distinct. To place their 
hopes on] ‘'Trust in,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘hope in.’ 

The uncertainty of | So Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., and similarly Wicl. and Author. 
(Marg.), ‘in uncerteynte of:’ ‘ uncer- 
tain, Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘the uncer- 
tayne,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. 

God] ‘The * living God,’ Auth. 

All things richly] * ‘ Richly all things,’ 
Auth. For enjoyment] ‘'To 
enjoy,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish., 
Rhem. ; ‘to use,’ Wicl. ; ‘to enjoy them,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran. 

18. Be free in, etc.] ‘ Ready to distrib- 
ute,’ Auth.; ‘lightly to geue,’ Wiel. ; 
‘redy to geve,’ Tynd., Cran., Genev., 
Bish. ; ‘that they geve and distribute,’ 
Cov. ; ‘to geue with a good wyll,’ Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘to give easily,’ Ahem. 


19. The true,] *‘ Eternal,’ Auth. 

20. The trust, ete.| ‘That which is 
committed to thy trust,’ Auth.; ‘the 
thing betakun to thee,’ Wiel.; ‘that 
which is geven the to kepe,’ Zynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘that which is com- 
mitted unto the,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ deposi- 
tum,’ Rhem. The| Auth, 
and the other Vy. except Fthem. omit art. 
The translation of BeBhaous, ‘ungostly,’ 
Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., deserves 
recording. Profane] ‘ Pro- 
fane and vain babblings,’ Auth. 

The falsely-called, etc.| Similarly Rhem. 
(omit art.): ‘science falsely so called,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
‘of fals name of kunnynge;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘of a false name of knowledge.’ 

21. Have gone wide, etc.| ‘ Have erred,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. except Wicel., ‘fellen 
doun ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘are fallen awaye ;” 
Cran., ‘erred.’ English idiom seems 
here to require the insertion of ‘have’ 
after the present participle. 

After ‘thee’ Auth, inserts * ‘ Amen.’ 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


CHAPTER I. 


AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, for the 
promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, ? to Timothy, my be- 


loved child. 
Christ Jesus our Lord. 


Grace, mercy, peace, from God the Father and 


8] thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure 


conscience, — as unceasing is the remembrance which I have of 
thee in my prayers night and day, 4 longing to see thee, being 
mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy ; 5 being put in 
remembrance of the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first 
in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am per- 


suaded that zt dwelleth also in thee. 


1. Christ Jesus] ‘Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 
For the| Similarly but more periphrasti- 
eally, Tynd., Cov., ‘to preache the,’ ete. : 
‘aceording to the,’ Auwth., Cov. (Test.), 
Cran., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘bi the be- 
heest of life,’ Wiel. 

2. Beloved child] ‘ Dearly beloved son,’ 
Author.; ‘his most dereworthi sone,’ 
Wicl.; ‘his beloved s.,’ Tynd., Cran. ; 
‘my dear son,’ Cov.; ‘my moost deare 
son; Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘my beloved son,’ 
Genev.; ‘a beloved son,’ Bish.; ‘my 
deerest s.,’7 Rhem. On the translation of 
tTéxvw, compare notes on 1 Tim. i. 2 
(Transil.). - Peace) ‘ And 
peace,’ Auth. 

3. A pure] So Cov. (both), Rhem.: 
‘pure,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. ex- 
cept Wicl., ‘ clene consciens.’ 

As unceasing, etc.| ‘That without ceas- 


6 For which cause I remind 


ing I have remembrance,’ Auth., Gen., 
Bish. ; ‘that with outen ceesynge I haue 
mynde,’ Wiel. ; ‘ that without c. I make 
mencion,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cranm. ; 
‘without intermission I have a memo- 
rie,’ Rhem. 

4, Longing] ‘And longe,’ Cov.; so, 
also, without any intensive force in ézt, 
the other Vy. (‘ desiring’), except Auth., 
‘ greatly desiring.’ 

5. Being put, etc.| *‘ When I call to 
remembrance,’ Auth. 

That it, etc.| So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish., except that they put ‘also’ last: 
‘that in thee also,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. ; ‘that also in thee,’ Wiel. Per- 
spicuity seems to require in English the 
repetition of the verb. 

_ 6. For which cause] So Wicl., and Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. (‘the which’): ‘ where- 


2 PPeOTEHY. Cuap. I. 7--10. 


244 
thee to stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying 
on of my hands. 7 For God gave us not the spirit of cowardice, 
but of power, and of love, and of self-control. 

8 Be not thou ashamed then of the testimony of our Lord, nor 
yet of me His prisoner; but rather suffer afflictions with me for the 
Gospel in accordance with the power of God. 9% Whosaved us, and 
called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but ac- 
cording to His own purpose and the grace which was given us in 
Christ Jesus before eternal times; ™ but hath been now made man- 
ifest through the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, when He 


fore,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. 
Comp. ver. 12, where Auth. preserves 
the more literal translation. 

I remind thee to] ‘I put thee in remem- 
brance that thou,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘I warne 
the that thou,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; 
*I moneste thee that thou,’ Wicl., Rhem. 
(‘admonish’) ; ‘I exhorte thee that thou,’ 
Cov. (Test.). Though all the Vv. adopt 
this periphrasis, it still seems desirable to 
preserve the simple inf., if only to dis- 
tinguish it from va with subj., which the 
transl. of Conyb., ‘I call thee to remem- 
brance, that thou mayest,’ etc., seems 
still more decidedly to imply. 

Through the] ‘ By the,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. Laying on| So 
Cov. (Test.): ‘putting on,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ settynge 
on ;’ Rhem., ‘imposition.’ 

7. Gave us not] So Wicl.: ‘hath not 
given us,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Cowurdice] ‘ Fear,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘drede” It may be 
remarked that the Genevan is the only 
version which uses a capital to ‘ Spirit.’ 
Self-control] ‘ A ‘sound mind,’ Author., 
Gen., Bish.; ‘sobirnesse,’ Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), Cran., and sim. Tynd., ‘ sobre- 
ness of mind ;” Rhem., ‘sobriety ;’ ‘ right 
understondynge,’ Cov. 

8. Ashamed then] ‘Therefore asham- 
ed,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Genev., 
Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ashamed therefore,’ Cov. : 


ovv is omitted in Tynd. Nor 
yet] ‘Nor,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
‘neither,’ Wicl. and the remaining Vy. 
But rather, etc.] ‘Be thou partaker of 
the afflictions of, Auth., Gen. ; ‘suffre 
adversite with the,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; 
‘traveile thou to gidre in the,’ Wiel. ; 
‘Jabour with the,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ travail 
with the, Rhem. In accord- 
ance with] ‘ According to,’ Auth., Cran., 
Cov. (both), Bish., Rhem.; ‘bi the vertu 
of,” Wiel. ; ‘ through,’ Tynd., Gen. 

9. Saved] So Tynd., Cran., Gen., and 
sim. Wicl., ‘delyuerid;’ ‘hath saved,’ 
Auth., Cov., Bish. ; ‘hath delyured,’ Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. The grace] 
‘Grace,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.: 
Wicl. alone puts a comma after ‘ pur- 
pose.’ See Scholef. Hints (in loc.). 
Eternal times| ‘ Before the world began,’ 
Auth., Cran., Bish., and similarly Tynd., 
Genev. (‘ world was’); ‘ worldli times,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘the tyme of the worlde,’ Cov. ; 
‘the everlastynge times,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘the secular times,’ Rhem. 

10. Hath been now] ‘Is now,’ Auth. 
Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. Though ‘by’ has appy. often in 
English the force of ‘by means of,’ yet 
here, on account of the && below, it 
seems best to be uniform in translation. 
Made death, etc.| ‘ Hath abolished death,’ 
Auth. ; ‘ distried death,’ Wicl., and sim. 
Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. (‘hath’); ‘hath 


Caap. I. 11—17. STEMOTH YE. 245 


made death of none effect, and brought life and incorruption to 
light through the Gospel: " whereunto I was appointed a herald, 
and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. ” For which cause 
I suffer also these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed; for I 
know in whom I have put my trust, and am persuaded that He is 
able to keep the trust committed unto me against that day. ” Hold 
the pattern of sound words, which thou heardest from me, in faith 
and love which is in Christ Jesus. ™ The good trust committed 
unto thee keep through the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. 

5 Thou knowest this, that all they which are in Asia turned away 
from me; of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. ‘ The Lord 
give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed 
me, and was not ashamed of my chain: ™ but on the contrary, when 
he arrived in Rome, he sought me out the more diligently, and 


put away,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘hath 
taken awaye,’ Cov. Incorruption| So 
Wiel., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘ immor- 
tality,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

11. J was] ‘lam,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. Herald] ‘ Preacher,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

12. Which] As in ver.6; so Wiel.: 
‘the which,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 
Suffer also| ‘ Also suffer,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘also I suffer.’ 

In whom, etc.| So Cran., ‘whom I have 
believed :’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Gen., Bish., Rhem., and similarly Wicl., 
‘to whom I shall haue bil.’ 

The trust, ete.| Similarly Wiel., ‘that is 
taken to my kepynge ;’ Rhem., ‘ my de- 
positum :’ ‘that which I have committed 
unto Him,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 

13. Hold] ‘ Hold fast,’ Auth. ; ‘have 
thou,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘se 
thou have,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘hold the [thee] after” Cov. The transl. 
of Auth., thus at variance with the old 
versions, is still retained by Conybeare, 
but is clearly inexact. 

The patiern] So Bish. : ‘the form,’ Auth., 
Wicl.; ‘the ensample,’ Tynd., Coverd. 
(both), Cran., Gen.; ‘a form,’ Rhem. 


Heardest] So Wicl., Tynd., Cov., Gen. : 
‘Hast heard, Auth. and the remaining 
Vy. From me] ‘ Of me,’ 
Auth. and all Vv. 

14. The good trust] ‘ That good thing 
which was,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Bish. ; 
‘the good takun to thi kepynge,’ Wicl. ; 
‘this hye charge,’ Cov.; ‘the good thing 
comm. unto the,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ that 
worthy thing which was, etc.,’ Genev. ; 
‘the good depositum,’ Rhem. 

Through] So Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., 
Bish.: ‘by,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. ; in,’ 
Tynd. 

15. Thou knowest this] So Rhem., and 
sim. Wicl.: {this thou knowest,’ Auth. 
and remaining Vy. Turned| 
‘Be turned,’ Auth. and all Vv. except 
Cov. (Test.), ‘are turned ;’? Rhem., ‘be 
averted.’ Phygelus| * ‘ Phy- 
gellus,’ Auth, 

17. Arrived in] ‘Was in,’ Author., 
Bish.; ‘came to,’ Wiclif; ‘was at,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘was come 
to,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
The more dil.| ‘ Very diligently,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ bisili ;” 
Coverd. (Test.), ‘ diligently ;’ Ahem., 
‘carefully.’ 

18. AMinistered] ‘ Ministered unto me,’ 


2 LLM OT HY. Cuap. I. 18—IL. 5. 


246 


found me. ™% The Lord grant unto him that he might find merey 
of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered at 
Ephesus, thou knowest better than I. 


CHAPTER II. 


Tov, therefore, my child, be inwardly strengthened in the grace 
that is in Christ Jesus. * And the things that thou heardest from 
me among many witnesses, these commit thou to faithful men, who 
shall be able to teach others also. * Suffer with me afflictions as a 
good soldier of Christ Jesus. * No man serving as a soldier en- 
tangleth himself with the affairs of life; that he may please him 


who chose him to be a soldier. 


Auth. and all the other Vv. except Cov. 
(Test.), ‘ hath served.’ 

Better than I] ‘ Very well,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ better,’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘ best.’ 


Cuarter II. 1. Therefore] So Auth. 
and all Vy. Here, perhaps, this trans- 
lation may be retained: ‘then’ may be 
thought slightly too weak, as the mean- 
ing seems to be, ‘as others have fallen 
away do thou make up for their defec- 
tion:’ compare notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1 
( Transl.). 
Child] ‘Son,’ Auth. and other Vv. 
Inwardly strengthened] ‘ Be strong, Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wiel., ‘ be com- 
forted,’ where the passive force is rightly 
preserved. 

2. Heardest from] ‘ Hast heard of,’ 
Auth. Among| So Auth.: 
‘bimany,’ ete., Wicl., Cov., Cov. (Test.), 
Cran., Bish., Rhem.; *many bearynge 
witness,’ Tynd., Gen. Perhaps ‘in the 
presence of,’ or ‘ with many to bear wit- 
ness,’ may convey the idiomatic use of 
dia a little more exactly ; as both trans- 
lations are, however, somewhat peri- 
phrastic, the Auth, is retained. 

These] So Rhem., and in a different 


‘figtith in bateile, Wiel. ; 


* Again, if a man also strive in the 


order, Wicl.: ‘the same,’ Auth. and 
remaining Vv. 

3. Suffer, etc.] Auth. prefixes * ‘thou 
therefore.’ Suffer afflictions} 
So Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Gen., Bish., 
omitting, however, ‘with me:’ ‘ endure 
hardness,’ Auth. (but comp. ch. iv. 5); 
“traueil,’ Wicl.; ‘labour,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. Christ Jesus] * ‘ Jesus 
Christ,’ Auth. 

4. Serving as, etc.| ‘That warreth,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘holdinge knyghthood,’ Wicl.; ‘war- 
rynge,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ being a souldiar,’ 
Rhem. Life] ‘ This life,’ 
Author., Bish. ; ‘worldli nedis,’ Wiel. ; 
‘worldly busynes,’ Zynd., Coverd. (both 
plural), Cranm., Genev.; * secular busi- 
nesses,’ hem. Chose] ‘ Hath 
chosen,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘to whom he hath preued hym 
self ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ hath allowed hym ;’ 
Rhem., ‘hath approved him self.’ . 

5. Again] ‘And,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
“TOs Strive in, etc.] ‘ Strive 
for masteries,’ Auth., and similarly Cov. 
(both), Zynd., Cranm., Genev., Rhem. ; 
‘ wrestle,’ 


Bish. He is] ‘ Yet is he, 


Cuap. II. 6—12. 2 PVG Orn EX 


247 


games, he is not crowned, except he strive according to rule. 
6 The LABORING husbandman ought to partake first of the fruits. 
7 Understand what I say, for the Lord will give thee apprehension 
in all things. 

8 Bear in remembrance Jesus Christ as raised from the dead, 
born of the seed of David, according to My gospel: 9 in the which 
I suffer afflictions as an evil doer even unto bonds; howbeit the 
word of God hath not been bound. ” For this cause I endure all 
things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the sal- 
vation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. ™ Faithful is 
the saying: For if we be dead with Him, we shall also live with 
Him: ” if we endure, we shall also reign with Him: if we shall 


Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
‘schal not be ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘is not.’ 
According to rule] ‘ Lawfully,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. except Gen., ‘as he 
oght to do.’ 

6. The laboring, etc.] So Cov. (Test.), 


Bish. : ‘the husb. that laboureth,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Rhem.; ‘an erthe- 
tilier,’ Wicl. ; ‘must first by laboryng 


receaue,’ Gen. Ought to, etc.| 
‘Must be first partaker,’ Auth., and sim. 
Bish. (‘first be’); ‘it behoueth etc. to 
resceyue first,’ Wicl.; ‘must fyrst re- 
ceave,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran., sim. 
Gen. (see above); ‘ must first enjoye,’ 
Cov. 

7. Understand] So Wicl., Rhemish ; 

‘ consider,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 
except Cov. (Test.), ‘ marke.’ 
For the Lord, etc.| ‘ And the Lord *give,’ 
Auth. Apprehension] ‘ Un- 
derstanding,’ Auth. and all the Vv.: 
change made only to avoid the repetition 
‘underst. — understanding,’ as in Wicl., 
Rhem., al. 

8. Bear in remembrance] ‘Remember 
that,’ Auth., Lynd., Cov., Cran., Bish., 
Gen.; similarly Wicl., Rhem., ‘ be thou 
(om. Rhem.) myndeful that ;’ ‘remem- 
ber the Lord to be, etc.,’ Cov. (Test.). 
As raised, etc.| ‘Of the seed of David 
was raised from the dead, etc.,’ Auth., 


and similarly, with a few slight varia- 
tions, all the other Vy. except Rhem., 
which inverts the order, ‘is risen againe 
from the dead, of the seede of David.’ 

9. In the which] So Cov. (Test.) and 
Wicl. (omits ‘the’): ‘wherein,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. 

Afjlictions| ‘Trouble,’ Author. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ traueil;’ Cov., 
‘suffre ;? Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘labour, 
Howbeit| ‘ But,’ Auth. and all the Vv. 
Hath not been| ‘Is not,’ Auth. 

10. For this cause] So Author. in 1 
Thess. ii. 13, ili. 5: ‘therefore,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Zynd., ‘ here- 
fore.’ Sake of, etc.| ‘ The 
elect’s sakes,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Wicl., ‘ for the chosen ;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘for the chosen’s sake ;? Rhem., 
‘for the elect.’ They also 
may| So Cov. (both), Rhem.: ‘they may 
also,’ Auth., and similarly the rem. Vv. 

11. Faithful is the] ‘It is a faithful 
saying,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘a trewe word,’ 
Wiel. ; ‘itis atrue saying,’ Tynd., Cran., 
Gen.; ‘this is a true s.,’ Cov. (both) ; 
‘a faithful saying,’ Rhem. 

12. Endure] ‘ Suffer,’ Author., Wicl., 
Gen. ; ‘be pacient,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Bish.; ‘have pacience,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘sustaine, Rhem. A change of mean- 
ing in two verses so contiguous as this_ 


248 


2TIMOTHY. 


Cuap. IT. 13—18 


deny Him, He also will deny us: ” if we be faithless, yet He con- 
tinueth faithful; for he cannot deny Himself. 

4 Of these things put them in remembrance, solemnly charging 
them before the Lord not to contend about words, a profitless 


course, to the subverting of the hearers. 


® Study to present thy- 


self approved unto God, a workman not ashamed, rightly laying 


out the word of truth. 


* But avoid profane babblings ; for they 


will advance to greater measures of ungodliness, ” and their word 


will spread as doth a gangrene. 


Of whom is Hymenzeus and Phi- 


letus, “men who concerning the truth have missed their aim, 


and verse 10, does not seem desirable. 
Shall deny] *‘ Deny,’ Auth. 

13. Be faithless] Similarly Bish., ‘ be 
unfaithful,’ to preserve the paronomasia 
of the original : ‘ believe not,’ Auth. and 
all the remaining Vy. 

Continueth] So Rhem.: ‘ abideth,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Coverd., Cran. ; ‘ dwelleth,’ Wicl. 
The transl. in the text is perhaps that 
best suited to the context; ‘ abideth,’ 
seems too strong, ‘remaineth’ too weak ; 
the latter, as Crabb (Synon. p. 291) re- 
marks, is often referred to involuntary, 
if not compulsory, actions. 

For He cannot] * ‘ He cannot,’ Auth. 

14. Solemnly charging] ‘ Charge,’ Auth.; 
“and testifie,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish. (omits ‘and’); ‘ testifyenge,’ Cov. 
(Test.). Not to contend] 
‘That they strive not,’ Auth.; an unne- 
cessary periphrasis for the infin., appy. 
caused by following Tynd., Cranm., al., 
where, however, it was required after 
‘testify :’ see above. On the true mean- 
ing of uaxoua, see notes on ver. 23. ° 
A profitless course] ‘ To no profit,’ Auth., 
Bish. ; ‘for to no thing it is profitable,’ 
Wicel., sim: Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘which 
‘is to no proffet,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., sim. 
Cran. To the, etc.| ‘ But to 
the, ete.,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Cov. 
Test.), ‘ save to, ete.’ 

15. Present] So Rhem.: ‘shew,’ Auth. 
and all Vv. except Wiel., ‘to geve the 


self.’ Not ashamed] ‘ That 
needeth not to be ashamed,’ Auth., Tynd.’ 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘ without shame,’ 
Wicl.; ‘laudable,’ Oov.; ‘not beynge 
ash.,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘not to be confound- 
ed,’ Rhem. Laying out] 
‘Dividing,’ Auth. ; see notes. 

16. Avoid] So Rhem. and Auth., Tit. 
iii. 9: here ‘shun,’ Auth.; ‘ eschewe,’ 
Wicl., Cov. (both) ; ‘ passe over,’ Tynd., 
Cran., Bish. ; ‘suppresse,’ Gen. 
Profane] Auth. adds ‘and vain,’ with 
Wicel., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Rhem. ; 
‘vanytyes of voyces,’ Cran. ; ‘ voyces of 
vanite,’ Bish. Advance, ete.| 
‘ Will increase unto more,’ Auth. ; ‘ prof- 
eten myche to,’ Wicl.; ‘help moch to,’ 
Cov.; ‘avail much unto,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
“encreace unto greater,’ Tynd., Cranm., 
Gen., Bish. ; ‘doe much grow to,’ Rhem. 

17. Spread] So Rhem.: ‘eat, Auth. ; 
‘crepith, Wicl.; ‘fret,’ Zynd., Coverd., 
Cran. Gangrene] So Auth. 
(Marg.): ‘canker,’ Auth., Wicl., Tynd., 
Cran. (similarly), Gen., al. 

18. Men who] ‘Who,’ Auth. and sim. 
all other Vy. Missed their 
aim] ‘ Have erred,’ Auth, and the other 
Vy. except Wicl., ‘felen doun fro ;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘are fallen away.’ The 
connection of the aor. with the present 
part., seems to require in English an im- 
sertion of the auxiliary verb; see notes 
on 1 Tim. i. 20 (Transl.). 


Cuap II; 19—23. wWRIMOTHY. 949 
saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith 
of some. ™ Nevertheless the firm foundation of God doth stand, 
having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His, and, Let 
every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unright- 
eousness. * But in a GREAT house there are not only vessels of 
gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to 
honor, and some to dishonor. *™ If a man then shall purge himself 
from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the 
master’s use, prepared unto every good work. 

-™ But flee the lusts of youth; and follow after righteousness, 
faith, love, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure 


heart. * But foolish and unlearned questions eschew, knowing 


19. Firm foundation] ‘ Foundation,’ Prepared] Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 


Auth., only ; the rest insert an epithet, 
e.g. ‘sad foundement,’ Wicl.; ‘sare 
grounde,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Genev. ; 
‘sure foundamente,’ Cov. (Test.), simil. 
Rhem.; ‘strong found.,’ Bish. 

Doth stand] So Cov. (Test.), sim. Wicl., 
Rhem., ‘standeth:’ ‘standeth sure,’ 
Author.; ‘remayneth,’? Tynd., Genev. ; 
*stondeth fast,’ Cov.; ‘standeth still,’ 
Cran., Bish. Of the Lord| 
* © Of Christ,’ Auth. 

Unrighteousness] ‘Tniquity,’ Author. and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd., 
(Test.) ; the prevailing translation of 
ad5:xta throughout Auwth., is ‘ unrighteous- 
ness,’ which there seems here no reason 
to modify ; see notes, 

21. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vv. except T'ynd., Cov., ‘ but.’ 
Shall purge] Similarly Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘shall clense:’ ‘ purge,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ clens- 
ith.’ The more exact translation ‘ shall 
have purged himself out of,’ is perhaps 
somewhat too literal. Meet 
Sor, etc.| *‘ And meet,’ Auth. In chap. 
iv. 11, e¥xpnoror is translated differently ; 
the sense, however, is so substantially 
the same, that it seems scarcely desirable 
to alter, merely for the sake of uniform- 
ity, the present idiomatic translation. 


32 


cept Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., which 
insert and. 

22. But flee] So Rhem.: ‘flee also,’ 
Auth.; ‘and fle,’ Wicl.; the rest omit 
the particle. The lusts of 
youth] So Cov. (both) : ‘ youthful lusts,’ 
Auth. ; ‘desiris of youth,’ Wicl. ; ‘ lustes 
of youth,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘ youthful desires,’ Rhem. 

And] ‘But,’ Auth.; comp. notes on 1 
Tim. vi. 11 ( Transl.) ' 

Follow after] ‘ Follow,’ Auth. 

Love] ‘ Charity,’ Auth. ; see notes on 1 
Tim. i. 5 (Transi.). Peace] Auth. 
adds a comma; Wicl. and Rhem. as Text. 

23. Foolish, ete.| So Author. and the 
other Vy.; the article, which appears to 
mark the ‘current,’ ‘prevalent’ ques- 
tions of this nature, can scarcely be ex- 
pressed ; the resolution of Conyb., ‘the 
disputations of the foolish; etc.,’ fails suf- 
ficiently to mark the intrinsic uwpia and 
amadevota of the questions themselves. 
Eschew] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.) : ‘ avoid,’ 
Auth., Rhem.; ‘put from thee,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 

Contentions] ‘ Strifes,’? Auth., and simil. 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ chidingis ;’ 
Rhem., ‘ brawls ;’ see notes. 

24, A servant] ‘ The servant,’ Auth. 

and all the Vv. Contend} 


2.TIMO THY. Cuap. II. 24—III, 2. 


250 


that they do gender contentions. ™ And a servant of the Lord 
must not contend; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient. 
of wrong, ” in meekness disciplining those that oppose themselves ; 
if God peradventure may give them repentance to come to the 
knowledge of the truth; * and that they may return to soberness 
out of the snare of the devil, though holden captive by him, to do 
His will. 


CHAPTER III. 


But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall ensue. 
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, lovers of money, 


‘Strive,’ Author., Tynd., etc.; ‘chide,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘wrangle,’ Rhem. 
Patient of wrong] ‘ Patient,’ Auth., Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘that can suffer 
the evyll,’ Tynd., Cow., Cran., Gen., and 
sim. Bish. (all connect with éy mpabrqrt) ; 
‘that can forbear the euel,’ Cov. 

25. Disciplining] See notes on 1 Tim. 
i, 20, and Jit, ii. 12: ‘instructing,’ Auth., 
Conyb., al., is not strong enough. 
May give] ‘Will give,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘give.’ 
To come to, etc.| ‘ To the acknowledging 
of, etc.,’ Auth. ; ‘that the knowen,’ Wicel.; 
‘for to knowe,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘to 
knowe,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘ that they 
may know,’ Gen.; ‘to the knowledge 
of,’ Bish. It will be observed that there 
is a slight fluctuation in our translation 
of érlyvwois. In some passages the con- 
text renders it desirable to express more 
fully the compound form (see notes on 
Eph. i. 17); in other cases (like the 
present) it seems to transpire with sufli- 
cient clearness, and may be left to be in- 
ferred by the reader. The truth really 
is that simply ‘knowledge’ is too weak, 
‘full knowledge’ rather too strong, and 
between these there seems no intermedi- 
ate term. 

26. Returnto soberness] ‘Recover them- 
selves,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘rise agen fro,’ 


Wicl.: ‘come to themselves agayne,’ 
Tynd., Cranm., Bish.; ‘turne agayne 
from,’ Cov. ; repent from,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘come to amendement,’ Gen. 

Though holden captive] Somewhat sim. 
Cran., Bish., ‘ which are holden captive’ 
(Cov., ‘holden in preson’): ‘ who aré 
taken captive,’ Auth.; ‘of whom thei 
ben holden prisoners,’ Wiel. ; ‘which 


. are now taken of him,’ Tynd.; Genev. 


omits é(wyp. in translation; ‘of whom 
they are held captive,’ Rhem. Perhaps 
the slight modification in the translation 
of the part., and the attempt to express, 
the tense, may alittle clear up this obscure 
passage. To do His will] 
‘ At his will,’ Author. and the other Vy. 
except Cov. (Test.), ‘unto his will’; 
Gen. ‘ performe hys wyll.’ 


Cuarter III. 1. But know this] Sim- 

ilarly ‘but,’ Wicl., Cov. (both): ‘this 
know also,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘this under- 
stonde,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘ this know,’ Cran. ; 
‘and this know thou,’ Rhem. 
Grievous] ‘ Perilous,’ Auth. and all the 
Vv. The translation ‘times’ (Katpof) 
is defensible ; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 1. 
Ensue] ‘Come,’ Auth., Tynd., Coverd., 
Cranm., Genev.; ‘schuln nygh,’ Wicl. ; 
‘be at hand,’ Cov. (Test.), Bish.; ‘ap- 
proche,’ Rhem. 


Ciapr. III. 3—9. PLATO Tay: 


201 


boasters, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, 
unholy, * without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, inconti- 
nent, savage, haters of good, * traitors, heady, besotted with pride, 
lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; * having an outward 
form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn 
away. © For of these are they which creep into houses, and lead 
captive silly women, laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 
* ever learning, and yet never able to come to true knowledge of the 
truth. * Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these 
also withstand the truth: men corrupted in their minds, reprobate 
concerning the faith. ° Howbeit they shall not make further ad- 
vance ; for their folly shall be fully manifest unto all men, as theirs 


also was. 


2. Lovers of money| Comp. Auth. in 1 
Tim. vi. 10; ‘covetous,’ Auth. and all 
the Vv. Haughty| ‘ Proud,’ 
Auth. and all the Vv. The term dzep- 
hpavo. coupled with the climactic char- 
acter of the context, seems to mark not 
only pride, but the ‘strong mixture of 
contempt for others’ which is involved 
in ‘haughty ;’ see Crabb, Synon. p. 64. 

8. Implacable] ‘ Truce breakers,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘ without peace.’ 
Slanderers} So Auth. in 1 Tim. iii. 11: 
‘false accusers,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘false blamers ;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘ accusers.’ 

Savage] ‘Fierce,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘unmylde;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘unmerciful.’ 

Haters of good] ‘ Despisers of those that 
are good,’ Avth., and very sim. the other 
- Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ with out be- 
nyngnyte ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ without kynd- 
“nesse.’ 

4. Besotted with pride] ‘ Highminded,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., 
‘bollun with proude thoughtis ;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘ puft up ;’ see notes on 
1 Tim. iii. 6. 

5. Outward form] ‘Form,’ Author., 
asish. ; ‘the liknesse,’ Wiel. ; ‘a simili- 


tude,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘a shyne,’ 
Cov. (both) ; ‘an appearance,’ Rhem. 
Such] So Auth., rightly omitting ‘and’ 
(as in Tynd., Cran., Gen.), the ascensive 
rad joined with rovrous giving the pro- 
noun approximately that meaning. 

6. Of these] So Wicl., Rhemish : ‘ of 
this sort,’ Auth., Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., 
Genev. ; ‘of them,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ these 
are they,’ Bish. 

7. Yet never] ‘Never,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vv. True know!l- 
edge] ‘The knowledge,’ Auth. and all 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘the science.’ Here 
the antithesis seems to suggest the strong- 
er translation of émiyywois; see above, 
notes on ch. ii. 25. 

8. Withstand] ‘ Resist,’ Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wiel., ‘agenstoden.’ 
Corrupted in their, ete.] ‘ Of corrupt 
minds,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wiclif, ‘corrupt in undirstondinge ;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘of corrupte mind ;’ Rhem, . 
‘corrupted in mind.’ / 

9. Howbeit] ‘ But,’ Auth. 

Not make, etc.] ‘Proceed no. farther,’ 
Author. ; ‘schuln not profite,’ Weel. ; 
‘prevayle no lenger,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Genev., Bish.; ‘farther shall they not 
profit,’ Cov. (Test.)'; ‘prosper no fur- 
ther,’ hem. Fully mani“est| 


2TIMOTHY. Cuap. III. 10—16. 


202 


© But thou wert a follower of My doctrine, manner of life, pur- 
pose, faith, long-suffering, love, patience, * persecutions, sufferings, 
—such sufferings as happened unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at 
Lystra ; such persecutions as I endured: and yet out of them all 
the Lord delivered me. ™ Yea, and all that will live godly in 
Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. “ But evil men and impos- 
tors shall make advance toward the worse, deceiving and being 
deceived. ™ But thou, continue in the things which thou learnedst 
and wert assured of, knowing of whom thou didst learn them ; 
% and that from a very child thou knowest the holy scriptures,’ 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which 
isin Christ Jesus. “ Every scripture inspired by God is also 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for discipline: 


‘Manifest,’ Auth., Rhemish; ‘schal be 
knowun,’ Wicl. ; ‘shal be uttered,’ Tynd., 
al. 

10. Wert a follower] * ‘ Hast fully 
known,’ Auth.; ‘hast getun,’ Wiel. ; 
‘hast sene the experience of, TZynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘hast attayned unto,’ 
Cov. (Test.), and very sim. Rhem. ; ‘ hast 
followed,’ Bish. Love] So 
all the Vv. except Auth., ‘ charity ;’ see 
notes on 1 Tim. i. 5. 

11. Sufferings] So Cov. (Test.): ‘ af- 

flictions,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Rhem., ‘passions. 
Such sufferings, etc.| Similarly Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘such as happened unto me:’ 
‘which came unto,’ Author., Bish. ; 
‘which happened unto,’ Z’ynd. and re- 
maining Vy. Such persecu- 
tions as| ‘ What persecutions,’ Auth. ; 
‘what maner persecuciouns,’ Wiclif, 
Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. (‘manner of’) ; 
‘which persec.,’ Zynd. and remaining 
Vv. And yet| ‘ But,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ and.’ 

13. Impostors| So Conyb. : ‘ seducers,’ 
Author., Rhem. ; ‘ deceyuers,’ Wicl. and 
remaining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ mis- 
cariers :’ ‘ deceivers’ is appy. the most 
satisfactory transl. (see notes), but some 
change seems required on account of 


maavavtes.  Tynd., Cran., Gen., retain. 
‘deceive ’ in both clauses. Wren: 
Shall make advance, etc.| ‘Shall wax 
worse and worse,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘encrees into wors ;’ 
Rhem., ‘shall prosper to the worse.’ 

14. Thou, continue] So Rhem.: ‘ con- 
tinue thou,’ Auth. and the other Vy. ex- 
cept Wicl., ‘dwelle thou.’ 

Learnedst| ‘ Hast learned,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vv. Wert 
assured] ‘Hast been,’ Author. ; ‘that 
ben bitakun to thee,’ Wicl.; ‘ were com- 
mitted unto the,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., 
Bish. ; ‘are comm. unto thee,’ Coverd. 
(Test.), Gen., Rhem. 

Didst learn] ‘ Hast learned,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. 

15. A very child] ‘A child,’ Author. ; 
‘fro thi yungethe,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘ of a child,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Genev. ; 
‘an infant,’ Bish.: ‘from thine infancie,’ 
Rhem. Thou knowest| ‘Hast . 
known,’ Auth. 

16. Every scripture] ‘ All scripture,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Gen., al. ; ‘ the whole scr.,’ 
Gen. Inspired by God, etc.] 
Sim. Wicel., Rhem., ‘ onspirid of God, is, 
ete.:’ ‘is given by inspiration of God 
and, etc.,’ Auth., Gen., Bish.; ‘geven 
hy insp. of God, is profitable,’ Tynd., 


Cuap. III. 17—IV. 6. 2 TIMOTHY... 


253 


which is in righteousness ; ” that the man of God may be complete, 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 


CHAPTER IV. 


I soLemNLy charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus who shall 
hereafter judge the quick and the dead, and by His appearing and 
by His kingdom ; ? preach the word; be attentive in season, out 
of season ; confute, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teach- 
ing. 3 For the time will come when they shall not endure the sound 
doctrine ; but after their own lusts they shall heap up to themselves 
teachers, having itching ears; 4 and they shall turn away their ears 
from the truth, and shall turn themselves aside unto fables. ° But 
do THOU be sober in all things, suffer afflictions, do the work of an 
evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. © For § am already being poured 


Cov., Cran.; ‘beynge insp. of heauen 
is,’ Cov. (Test.). Discipline, 
etc.] ‘Instruction in,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘to 
lerne in,’ Wicl.; ‘to instruct in,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., Rhem.; ‘to enfourme 
in,’ Cov. (Test.). 

17. Complete] ‘ Perfect,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vv. 


Cuarrer IV. 1. Solemnly charge] 
‘Charge,’ Auth. ; ‘ witnesse,’ Wicl. ; ‘ tes- 
tifie,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv.; com- 
pare notes on 1 Tim. v. 21 (Transi.). 
Thee| Auth. adds *‘ therefore.” 
Christ Jesus] * ‘ The Lord Jesus Christ,’ 
Auth. Shall hereafter] 
‘Shall,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Cov., which apparently endeavors to dis- 
’ tinguish between péAAoyTos and a com- 
mon future by ‘ which shall come to.’ 
And by His, etc.] * ‘ At his, etc.,’ Auth. 
And by His] ‘ And his,’ Auth. 

2. Attentive] ‘Instant,’ Auth., Bish., 
simil. Rhemish, ‘urge ;’ ‘be thou bisy,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘be fervent,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. ; ‘be earnest,’ Cov. (Test.). 
Confute] ‘Reprove,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.) ; Tynd. and the remaining Vv., 


‘improve.’ 
‘Doctrine,’ Auth. ; see notes. 

8. Shall not] So Cov. (both), Bish. : 
‘will, Auth. aud remaining Vv. It 
seems desirable to preserve ‘ shall ’ 
throughout ver. 3 and 4, as there is no 
apparent reason for the change. We 
now should probably use ‘ will’ through- 
out; the ‘ usus ethicus,’ however, which 
is said to limit the predictive ‘shall’ to 
the first person, was unknown to our 
Translators ; comp. Latham, Eng. Lang. 
§ 521 (ed. 4). The sound] 
‘Sound,’ Auth. They shall 
heap up] ‘ Shall they,’ Auth., following all 
the other Vv., some of which, however 
(Tynd., Cov., Cran.), by adopting slight- 
ly different constructions, make the in- 
version more natural. 

4, Turn themselves, ete.| ‘Be turned,’ 
Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; ‘ thei 
schuln turn,’ Wicl.; ‘be geven,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Bish. ; ‘be converted,’ Rhem. 

5. Do thou, etc.| ‘Watch thou,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘wake 
thou ;’ Rhem., ‘be thou vigilant.’ 
Suffer] So Tynd., Coverd., “Cran., Gen., 
Bish. : ‘endure,’ Auth. ; ‘traueil,’ Wicl. ; 


Teaching] 


Tire MO EH YY. Cuar. IV. 7—15. 


254 
out, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7I have striven the 
good strife, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. 
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, 
which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me in that day ; 
and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing. 

9 Use diligence to come shortly unto me: ” for Demas hath for- 
saken me from love of the present world, and is gone unto Thessa- 
lonica ; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. ™ Only Luke is 
with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is service- 
able to me for ministering. ™ But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus. 
3 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, 
bring with thee, and the books, especially the parchments. “ Alex- 
ander the coppersmith showed me much ill-treatment: may the 


Lord reward him according to his works. 


15 Of whom be thou ware 


also ; for he greatly withstandeth our words. 


‘*Jabour,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 
Fulfil] So Wiel. and all the Vv. except 
Auth., ‘make full proof of.’ 

6. Already being, etc.| ‘ Am now ready 
to be offered,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Wicl., ‘I am sacrificed now ;’ Cov. 
(Test.), ‘I am now offred.’ 

7. Striven the good, etc.| So Wiel.: 
‘fought the good fight,’ Auth., and simi- 
larly all the other Vv. (‘a good’); com- 
‘pare notes on 1 Tim. vi. 12 (Transl.). 

8. The] ‘A,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
In] Wicl., Coverd. (both), Rhem.: ‘at,’ 
Auth, and the remaining Vy. 

9. Use diligence] ‘Do thy diligence,’ 

 Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘high thou,’ Wiel. ; 

‘make spede,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘make 
hast,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

10. From love of] ‘ Having loved,’ 
Auth., Bish. ; ‘louynge,’ Wicel., Coverd. 
(Test.), Rhem. ; ‘and hath loved,’ Tynd.; 
“and loveth,’ Cov., Cran.; ‘and hath 
embraced,’ Gen. Is gone} 
So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘is departed,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; 
‘went,’ Wiel. On reconsideration it 
would seent that the purely aoristic trans- 
lations ‘forsook — went’ (ed. 1) throw 


the events too far backward into the past. 
As the desertion appears to have been 
recent, our idiom seems here to require 
the use of the auxiliaries. In verse 16 
the case is different: there the epoch is 
defined in the context. 

The present] ‘This present,’ Auth. and 
all Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
‘ this.’ 

11. Serviceable] As in ch. ii. 21 : ‘ prof- 
itable,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., 
Bish., Rhem. ; ‘necessary,’ Tynd., Gen. 
For ministering] Sim. Tynd., Gen., ‘for 
to minister:’ ‘for the ministry,’ Auth., 
Rhem.; ‘in to service,’ Wicl.; ‘for the 
ministracion,’ Cov. (‘ to the’), Cranm., 
Bish. ; ‘in the service,’ Cov. (Test.). 

12. But] So Rhem.: ‘and,’ Author., 
Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘forsothe,’ 
Wiel. ; Cov. (both) omit. 

I sent] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.): ‘have I 
sent,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Rhem., ‘I have,’ ete. 

13. Especially] So Rhem. ; ‘but espe- 
cially,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vv. 

14. Showed me, etc.] Similarly Wiel., 
Coverd. ('Test.), ‘schewid to me myche 
yuel,’ and Bish., Rhem., ‘shewed me,’ 


Cuap. IV. 16—22. Piro THY. 


250 


° At my first answer no man stood forward with me, but all men 
forsook me: may it not be laid to their charge. ” But the Lord 
stood by me, and gave me inward strength ; that by me the preach- 
ing might be fulfilled, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I 
was delivered out of the lion’s mouth. ™“ The Lord shall deliver 
me from every evil work, and shall save me into His heavenly king- 
dom: to whom ée glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

® Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. 
” Erastus remained at Corinth: but Trophimus I left sick at Mi- 
letus. ™ Use diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth 
thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. 


” The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. 


etc.: ‘did me much evil,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘hath done,’ Gen. 
May reward] ‘ Reward,’ Auth. 

15. Greatly] ‘ Hath greatly,’ Author., 
Cran., Bish. ; ‘dyd greatly,’ Cov. (Test.) : 
the rest omit the auxiliary. 
Withstandeth| ‘ Withstood,’ Auth. 

16. Stood forward with| ‘Stood with 
me,’ Auth.; ‘helpid,’ Wicl.; ‘assisted, 
Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Gen., Bish., and 
sim. Cov. (Test.),— by no means an in- 
appropriate translation ; ‘was with me,’ 
. Rhem. May it, etc.| Sim. 

Wicl., Rhem., ‘be it not:’ ‘I pray God 
that it may not,’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. 

17. But] So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘ notwithstanding,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. The translation of 
these latter Vy. is perhaps slightly too 
strong for the simple 6¢. 

By me] So Cov. (both): ‘ with me,’ 
Auth. ; ‘stoode to me,’ Rhem, ; ‘helpid,’ 
Wicl. ; the rest, ‘ assisted.’ 

Gave me inward] As in1 Tim.i. 12: 
‘strengthened,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘ connfortid.’ 
Fulfilled] As in ver. 5; so Cov. (Test.), 
and similarly Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish., ‘should be fulfil. to the utmost :’ 


Grace be with you. 


‘fully known,’ Auth. ; ‘be fillid,” Weel. ; 
“be accomplished,’ Rhemish. As Auth. 
and all the Vv. have ‘by’ in connection 
with this verb, and as this prep. appears 
formerly (as indeed not uncommonly at 
present) to have been used as equivalent 
to ‘by means of,’ no change has been 
made. The lion’s mouth] So 
Cov. (Test.): ‘the mouth of the lion,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vy. ; see notes. 

18. The Lord] *‘ And the Lord,’ Auth. 
Shall save me unto] Similarly Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), ‘schall make me saaf in to:’ © 
‘will preserve me unto,’ Author., Bish. ; 
‘shall kepe me unto,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. ; ‘will save me unto,’ Rhem. Per- 
haps the very pregnant expression od(ewv 
eis may permit this literal translation. 

20. Remuined| So Rhem., and simil. 

Cov. (Test.), ‘did rem.:’ ‘abode,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. 
I left, etc.] ‘ Have I left at M. sick,’ Auth, 
Miletus] So Cov. (Test.), and similarly 
Wicl., ‘ Mylete:’ Auth. and all the rest, 
‘ Miletum.’ 

21. Usedil.| ‘Do thy diligence,’ Auth., 
Cran., Bish. ; ‘high thou,’ Wicl. ; ‘make 
spede,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘make hast,’ Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. 

22, Auth. adds * ‘ Amen,’ 


THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 


CHAPTER I. 


AUL, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the 
faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth which lead- 
eth unto godliness ; 2 upon the hope of eternal life, which God that 
camnot lie promised before eternal times, * but made manifest in 
His own seasons His word in the preaching, with which I was in- 
trusted according to the commandment of our Saviour God ; 4 to 
Titus, my true child after the common faith. Grace and pease 
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour. 
5 For this cause left I thee im Crete, that thou shouldest further 
set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 


Cuarter I. 1. For] Similarly Tynd., 
Coverd., Gen., ‘ to preach the faith ;? ‘ ac- 
cording to,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘bi the.’ 

Knowledge| So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., 
Bish., Rhem.: ‘acknowledging, Auth., 
Gen.; ‘knowinge,’ Wicl. 

Leadeth unto] So Cov.: ‘is after,’ Auth., 
Wicel., Tynd., Cran., Bish. ; ‘ accordyng 
to,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen., Rhem. 

2. Upon the] So Tynd., Cov. : ‘in,’ Auth., 
Cran., and Bish. (‘the’); ‘in to the,’ 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘unto the, 
Gen. Eternal times] Sim. Cov. (Test.), 
‘everlastynge times :’ ‘ world began,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cran. Gen., Bish. ; ‘ of the 
world,’ Wicl., Cov.; ‘ secular times,’ Rhem. 

8. Made manifest] Similarly Bish., 
‘hath made man :’ ‘hath....manifested,’ 
Auth., Rhem.; ‘hath schewid,’ Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.); ‘hath opened,’ Zynd. and 


_ Wicel., Rhem., ‘in 


remaining Vv. In the] Sim. 
:? ‘through,’ Author. 
and the remaining Vv. except Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘ by the.’ With 
which, etc.| ‘ Which was committed unto 
me,’ Author. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘is bitakun to me.’ 

Our Saviour God| So Rhem.: Auth. and 
the remaining Vv., ‘God our Saviour ;’ 
see notes on ch. iii. 4. ; 

4. My true child] ‘Mine own son,’ 
Auth. ; ‘most dereworthe somne,’ Wiel. ; 
‘his natural sonne,’ Zynd., Cran. ; ‘my 
natural son,’ Cov. ; ‘my dear son,’ Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘his naturall sonne,’ Cran. ; ‘a 
natural sonne,’ Bishops; ‘my beloued 
sonne,’ Rhem. Grace] Auth. 
adds * ‘mercy,’ omitting kat. 

Christ Jesus] * * The Lord J. C.,’ Auth. 

5. Further set, etc.] ‘ Set in order,’ 
Auth.; ‘amende,’ Wicl.; ‘performe,’ 


Cuap. I. 6—10. PELs: 


207 


city, as I gave thee directions ; 6 if any be under no charge, a hus- 
band of one wife, having BELIEVING children, not accused of disso- 
luteness, or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as being 
God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, not fierce over wine, 
no striker, not greedy of base gains ; ® but a lover of hospitality, a 
lover of goodness, soberminded, righteous, holy, temperate : 9 hold- 
ing fast the faithful word according to the teaching, that he may be 
able both to exhort by the sound doctrine and to refute the gain- 


sayers. 


For there are many unruly vain talkers and inward deceiv- 


Tynd., Cov. ; ‘refourme,’ Cranm., Bish., 
Rhem. ; ‘redresse,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen. 
Gave thee dir.| ‘Had appointed thee,’ 
Auth., Cran., Bish. ; ‘also I disposid to 
thee,’ Wicl.; ‘appointed thee,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Gen. ; ‘have app.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘also appointed,’ Rhem. 

6. Under no, etc.| ‘ Blameless,’ Auth., 
Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘withouten cryme,’ 
Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘ fautelesse,’ Tynd., Gen. ; 
‘without blame,’ Cov. (Test.). 

A husband] So Wicl., ‘an:’ ‘the hus- 
band,’ Awth. and all the other Vv. 
Believing] ‘ Faithful,’ Auth. and all the 
Vv. Dissoluteness| ‘ Riot,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. except Wicl., 
*leccherie.’ 

7. A Bishop] The idiom of our lan- 
guage seems only to admit of two trans- 
lations, either ‘ a bish.’ or ‘ every bish. ;” 
the former is adopted by all the Vv. 

As being, etc.| Similarly Gen., ‘as it be- 
commeth God’s steward :’ ‘as the stew- 
ard of God,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., ‘a dispensour of God ;’ 
‘the minister of God,’ Tynd. 

Fierce over| ‘ Given to,’ Auth., Coverd., 
Bish., Rhem. ; ‘not drunkenlewe,’ Wicl. ; 
‘no dronkarde, Zynd., Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘even to moch w.,’ Cran., Gen. 

’ Greedy of, etc.] ‘Given to filthy lucre,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ cou- 
eitous of foule wynnynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘ gre- 
dye of filthye. lucre,’ Cov. ; ‘desirous of 


f. 1.,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ couetous of f, 1,’ 
Rhem. 

8. Goodness] So Tynd., Cov., Cranm., 
Gen., Bish. : ‘good men,’ Author. ; * be- 
nyngne,’ Wicl.; ‘gentle,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. Soberminded| So 
Tynd., Cov.: ‘sober,’ Author. and the 
remaining Vy. except Gen., ‘ wise.’ 
Righteous] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
and Auth., in 1 Tim. i. 9, 2 Tim. iv. 8: 
here Auth., Wicl., Rhem., ‘ just.’ 

9. According to, etc.| Similarly Cov. 
(Test.), ‘which is acc. to the doctrine,’ 
and Bish., Rhem. (omit ‘ the’): ‘as he 
hath been taught,’ Auth.; ‘in holsum 
techynge,’ Wicl.; ‘the true worde of 
doctr.,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 

Both to exhort, etc.| ‘By sound doctrine 
both to exhort and to,’ etc., Auth. Most 
of the Vv. only translate one «at; Gen., 
‘also to exhort by, ete.....and to.’ 
Refute] ‘Convince,’ Auth.; ‘ repreue,’ 
Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘improve,’ Tynd., Cran., 
Gen. 

10. Unruly] Auth. adds ‘and;’ so all 
the other Vy.: comp., however, Scholef. 
Hints, p. 125. Vain talkers] 
So Auth., and similarly Coverd., Tynd., 
Cranm., Gen.; ‘vain. babblers’? would 
have been more in conformity with 1 
Tim. i. 6, but a change is scarcely neces- 
sary. Inward deceivers] 
Similarly Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Gen., 
Bish., ‘disceavers of myndes:’ ‘ deceiv- 


33 


TIES. Cuap. I. 11—16, 


258 


ers, specially they of the circumcision: ” whose mouths must be 
stopped, seeing they overthrow whole houses, teaching things which 
they should not, for the sake of base gain. ™ One of themselves, 
even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always lars, 
evil beasts, slothful bellies. ™ This witness is true. For which 
cause refute them sharply, in order that they may be sound in the 
faith ; * not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of 


men that turn themselves away from the truth. 
© For the pure all things are pure: but for them that are de- 
filed and unbelieving there zs nothing pure; but both their mind 


and their conscience is defiled. 


* They profess that they know 


God; but in their works they deny Aim, being abominable, and 
disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. 


ers,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

11. Seeing they, etc.| ‘ Which subvert,’ 

Auth. and the other Vv. except Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., ‘which pervert.’ It seems 
desirable to preserve the more exact 
translation of ofrwes and the simpler 
transl. of avatpémovow adopted by Auth. 
in 2 Tim. ii. 18. Should not] 
‘Ought not,’ Auth. and all the Vv. ex- 
‘cept Wicl., ‘it bihoueth not.’ 
For the sake of, etc.| ‘ For filthy lucre’s 
sake,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘for the loue of foule 
wynnynge,’ Wicl.; ‘because of filthy 
lucre,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen. ; 
‘for filthy lucre,’ Rhem. 

12. Slothful] So Rhem.: Auth. and all 
the remaining Vv., ‘ slow.’ 

13. For which cause] Similarly Wiel. 
(‘what’), Rhem. (‘the which’): Auth. 
and the remaining Vv., ‘ wherefore.’ 
Refute| ‘Rebuke,’ Author. and all the 
other Vy. except Wicl., ‘blame.’ 

In order that] ‘ That,’ Auth. and all the 
_ other Vy. 

14. Turn themselves, etc.| Similarly 
Cov., ‘which tourne them away,’ etc., 
and so Wicl. and Ithem., ‘ auerting them- 
selves from :’ ‘that turne from,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘ that turne away the 


trueth,’ Cran. The translation, owing 
to the absence of the article, is not criti- 
cally exact (see notes) ; a second parti- 
ciple, however, as in Cov. (Test.), Bish., 
‘turning from,’ and Rhemish (above), 
seems here so awkward that in this par- 
ticular case we may perhaps acquiesce 
in the insertion of the rclative. If there 
be any truth in the distinction between 
‘that’ and ‘which’ alluded to in the 
notes on Eph. i. 23 (Transl.), the substi- 
tution of ‘who’ (Conyb.) for ‘that’ is 
far from an improvement. 

15. For (bis)| ‘Unto’ (bis), Auth. and 
all the other Vy.; Wiclif and Rhemish 
(‘to’). There is| So Cov. : 
‘is nothing,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ nothing is.’ 
Both] So Coverd., Rhem.: ‘even,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Wiel. and 
Cov. (Test.), which omit the first cat. 
Their conscience] Auth. and all Vy. omit 
‘their,’ but in Tynd., al., the clause is 
translated slightly differently, ‘ the very 
myndis and consciences of them.’ 

16. Their works] So Rhemish: ‘in . 
works,’ Auth. ; ‘bi dedis,’ Wiel. ; ‘with 
the dedes,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cranm., 
Gen. ; ‘with works,’ Bish. 


TITUS. 


Cuap, II. 1—7. 259 


CHAPTER II. 


But do THov speak the things which become the sound doctrine : 
2that the aged men be sober, grave, discreet, sound in faith, in 
love, in patience. ® The aged women likewise, that in demeanor 
they beseem holiness, not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, 
teachers of good things ; 4 that they may school the young women 
to be loving to their husbands, loving to their children, * sober- 
minded, chaste, keepers at home, good, submitting themselves to 


their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. 


6 The younger men likewise exhort to be soberminded. 


Cuapter II. 1. Do thou] So Rhem.: 
‘speak thou,’ Author. and all the other 
Vv. The sound] ‘ Sound,’ 
Auth., Rhem.; ‘holsum’ (without art.), 
Wicl. and remaining Vv. 

2. Discreet] So Cov., Tynd., Cranm., 
Gen.: ‘temperate,’ Auth.; ‘ prudent,’ 
Wicl.; ‘wyse,’? Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; 
“sober,’ Bish. The usual translation 
*soberminded’ would perhaps here tend 
to imply a limitation of the preceding 
yngaatous to ‘ sober’ in the primary sense, 
which the present context does not seem 
to involve; contrast 1 Tim. iii. 2, and 
see notes on that passage. 

Love| ‘ Charity,’ Auth.; see notes on 1 
Tim. i. 5 (Transl.). 

3. That in demeanor, etc.| ‘ That they 
be in behavior as becometh holiness,’ 
Auth. and sim. Gen., Bish. (‘in such 
beh.’) ; ‘in holi abite,’ Wicl.; ‘in soche 
rayment as becommeth holiness,’ Tynd., 
Cran.; ‘that they use holy apparel,’ 
Cov. (Test.); ‘that they shewe them- 
selves as it becommeth,’ etc., Cov.; ‘in 
holy attire,’ Rhem. Slanderers] 
So Wicl., and also Auth. in 1 Tim. iii. 
11: Auth. (here), Tynd., Cov., Cranm., 
Gen., Bish., ‘false accusers;’ Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘ accusers ;’ ‘il speakers,’ Rhem. 
Enslaved| Similarly Tynd., ‘ seruynge :’ 
* given,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 


7 Tn all 


4. School] ‘ Teach the, etc., to be so- 

ber,’ Author. ; ‘monest thou yunge w.,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘to make the, etc., sobreminded,’ 
Tynd., Bish. ; ‘ enfourme the etc. to be,’ 
Cov.; ‘that they teache wisdom,’ Cov. 
(Test.), and sim. Rhemish ; ‘that they 
teache honest thinges to make the, etc., . 
sobreminded,’ Cran.; ‘ that they may 
instruct the, etc., to be, etc.,’ Gen. 
To be loving, etc.| ‘To love their hus- 
bands, to love their children,’ Auth., and 
sim. the other Vv. Change made to 
preserve the sequence of adjectives. 

5. Sober-minded| ‘ To be discreet,’ Au- 
thor., Tynd., Cov. ; ‘ that thei ben prudent,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘wyse,’ Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
‘that they be discreet, Gen. ; ‘ discreet,’ 
Bish. 

Keepers at home] The transl. of Tynd., 
Cran., ‘ huswyfly,’ deserves notice. 
Submitting themselves] So Auth., Eph. v. 
21; ‘obedient to,’ Author., and all Vv. 
except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ suget to.’ 

6. The younger] ‘Young men,’ Auth. 
and all the Vy. except Cov. (both), ‘ the 
young men.’ 

7. In all respects] ‘Tn all things,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Cov., Tynd., 
Gen., ‘above all thynges.’ 

Thy doctrine] Similarly ‘the doctrine,’ 
Cran., Bish. : ‘ doctrine,’ Auth., Rhem. ; 
‘techinge,’ Wicl.; ‘with uncorrupte doc- 


260 TITUS. Cuar. II. 8—13. 


respects showing thyself a pattern of good works; in thy doctrine 
showing uncorruptness, gravity, ® sound discourse that cannot be 
condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, 
having no evil thing to say of us. 9 Hxhort bond-servants to submit 
themselves unto their own masters, in all things to be well pleasing 
to them, not gainsaying, * not purloining, but showing forth all good 
fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of our Saviour God in 
all things. 

1 For the grace of God hath appeared, that bringeth salvation 
to all men, ” disciplining us to the intent that having denied un- 
godliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly, righteously, and 
godly, in the present world; ” looking for the blessed hope and 


trine,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘learnynge,’ 
Cov. (Test.). Gravity] Auth. 
adds * ‘ sincerity.’ 

8. Discourse] ‘Speech,’ Auth. ; all the 
other Vv., ‘word.’ A translation should 
be chosen which will not limit Adyoy too 
much to ‘speech’ in private life: see 
notes. Us| ** You,’ Auth. 

9. Bond-servants]} As in Eph. vi. 5: 
‘servants,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Submit themselves] As in ver. 5: ‘ be obe- 
dient,’ Auth. Tn all things, etc.] 
‘And to please them well in all things,’ 
Auth. ; ‘in alle thingis: plesynge not,’ 
etc., Wiel. ; ‘and to please in all things,’ 
Tynd., Cov. ; ‘to be pleasynge them, etc.,’ 
Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and to please them in all 
things,’ Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘in al things 
pleasing,’ Rhem. Gainsaying] 
So Rhem. and Auth. (Marg.) : ‘ answer- 
ing again,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
cept Wicl., ‘ agenseiynge.’ 

10. Showing forth] ‘Shewing,’ Auth. 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘that 
they shewe,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘to 
shewe,’ Cov. Our Saviour 
God] So Tynd., Gen., Rhem.: ‘God oar 
Saviour,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 

11. Salvation to all men] So Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., Auth. (Marg.), and 
similarly Bish., ‘healthful to all :’ ‘hath 
appeared to all men,’ Author.; ‘of God 


oure Sauyour,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem. The slight inversion of clauses 
in the text is both to preserve the connec- 
tion of cwrhpios with maow avSp., and 
also to leave émepdyn, as much as possi- 
ble, in the prominent position it occupies 
in the original. 

12, Disciplining us] ‘'Teaching us,’ 
Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish. ; ‘and taughte,’ 
Wicl.; ‘and teacheth,’ Tynd., Coverd., 
Cranm., Gen.; ‘instructing us,’ Rhem. 
‘ Teaching by discipline,’ would be per- 
haps a more easy translation (compare 
1 Tim. i. 20); the verb, however, is oc- 
casionally used absolutely (as here) by 
some of our older writers, e. g. Shak- 
speare and Milton. To the 
intent, etc.| ‘That denying,’ Auth., Bish., 
Rhem. ; ‘that we forsake,’ Wicl.; ‘ that 
we shuld deny,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 3 
‘that we deny,’ Cov. (Test.). 

The present] ‘This present,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (both), 
and Rhem., which omit ‘ present.’ 

13. The blessed] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘that blessed,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vy. And appearing, 
ete.] So Cov., Cran., Gen, (‘notable app., 
ete.’) Bish., Rhem. (‘advent’), and sim- 
ilarly Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘the comynge 
of the glorie :’ ‘ the glorious appearing,’ 
Auth., and similarly Tynd., omitting ar- 


Guar. IE, 14—IIL 4. TYTUS: 261 
appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ; 
“who gave HIMSELF for us, that He might ransom us from all ini- 
quity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
works. ” These things speak, and exhort, and reprove with all 


authority. Let no man despise thee. 


CHAPTER ITIl. 


Put them in mind to submit themselves to rulers, to authorities ; 
to be obedient, to be ready to every good work, * to speak evil of 
no man, to be averse to contention, forbearing, showing forth all 
meekness unto all men. % For we WERE once ourselves also foolish, 
disobedient, going astray, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living 
in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4 But when the 
kindness and the love toward man of. our Saviour God appeared, 


ticle. It is noticeable how our older Vv. To be 


have avoided a doubtful interpretation of 
the gen., into which even accurate schol- 
ars, like Green (Gramm. p. 215), have 
allowed themselves to be betrayed. 
And Saviour] Similarly in sense. Gen., 
‘ which is of our Saviour :’ ‘ and our S.,’ 
Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘and 
of our §.,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (but no 
preceding comma), Cran. 

14. Ransom] ‘ Redeem,’ Auth. and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ agenbie.’ 

15.. Reprove] So Wiclif: ‘rebuke,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vy. 


Cuapter III. 1. Submit themselves to] 
So Cov., Tynd., Cran., Gen.: ‘be subject 
to,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘be obe- 
diente to,’ Cov. (Test.)}. 

To rulers, to auth.] ‘ Principalities * and 
powers,’ Auth.; ‘princis and powers,’ 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘rule and power,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ prynces and 
to the hyer auctorite,’ Coverd.; ‘ princes 
and potestates,’ Rhem. The occasional 
use of the term ‘ principalities’ in Auth., 
with reference to angelical orders, makes 


a change desirable. 
obedient] Sim. Gen., ‘to obey :’ ‘ to obey 
magistrates,’ Auth. 

2. Averse to contention] ‘ No brawlers,’ 
Auth. ; ‘not ful of chidynge,’ Wiel. ; ‘no 
fyghters,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘no 
stryvers,’ Cov. (both) ; ‘litigious,’ Rhem. 
Forbearing] ‘ But gentle,’ Auth., Cranm., 
Bishops; ‘but temperat,’» Wicl.; ‘but 
softe,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen. 

Showing forth] As in 1 Tim. i. 16, al.: 
‘shewing,’ Auth. 

3. Were once] ‘ We ourselves also were 
sometimes, etc.,’ Auth., and in similar 
order majority of Vv. Going 
astray] Sim. Wicl., Rhemish, ‘erring :’ 
‘deceived,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen. 
Hating] ‘ And hating,’ Auth. 

4. When] So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘after that,’ Auth. and remain- 
ing Vv. The love toward man, 
etc.]| So, as to order, Rhem.: ‘love of 
God our Saviour toward man,’ Author, 
Wicl. has here a singular translation, 
‘the manhed of, ete.’ 

Our Saviour God] So the other Vv. ex- 
cept Auth., Cov., ‘God our Saviour.’ 


riTUus. Cuap. III. 5—10. 


262 


5 not by works of righteousness which we did, but after His mercy 
He saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost ; ® which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus 
Christ our Saviour ; 7 that being justified by His grace, we should 
become heirs of eternal life, according to hope. 

8 Faithful is the saying, and about these things I desire that thou 
make asseveration, to the intent that they which have believed God 
may be careful to practise good works. These things are good and 
profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, 
and strifes, and contentions about the law ; for they are unprofita- 
ble and vain. ” A man that is an heretic, after a first and second 


5. Wedid] So Wicl., Rhem.,and sim. (‘saying’). About these 


Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., ‘we wrought :’ 
‘we have done,’ Auth., Coverd. (Test.) ; 
‘ which be in right, we oughte,’ Bish. 
After] So Cov.: ‘ according to,’ Auth., 
Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘bi,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘of, Tynd., Gen. 

Laver] So Rhem.: ‘washing,’ Author., 
Wiel. ; ‘fountain,’ Tynd., al. The com- 
ma after ‘ regeneration,’ Author., Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen., is not found in Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. 

6. Poured out upon] ‘Shed on,’ Auth. 

and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ schedde 
in to ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘ poured forth ;’ 
Rhem., ‘ poured upon us.’ 
Richly] So Bish., Auth, (Marg.): ‘ abun- 
dantly,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Rhem. ; ‘ plenteousli,’ Wicl. ; ‘ plentyful- 
ly,’ Cov. (Test.). 

7. Become] ‘ Be made,’ Auth. 

Heirs of, etc.| So Cov., and similarly, in 
respect of order, Tynd., ‘heirs of eternal 
lyfe, thorowe hope :’ ‘ heirs according to 
the hope of, etc.,’ Auth., Coverd. (Test.), 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘eeris bi hope of,’ 
Wicl.; ‘heires aecording to hope of,’ 
Rhem. 

8. Faithful is the saying] ‘This is a 
faithful saying,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘a trewe 
word is, etc.,’ Wicl. ; ‘ this is a true say- 
ing,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘it is a 
faythful worde,’ Cov. (Test.), sim. Rhem. 


things] Sim. all the other Vv., ‘ of these 
things,’ except Author., ‘these things.’ 
Desire] ‘ Will,’ Auth., Wicl., Cran., Gen., 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘wolde,’ Tynd., Coverd. 
(both). Make asseveration] 
‘ Affirm constantly,’ Author. ; ‘ conferme 
other,’ Wiel. ; ‘certifie,’ Tynd., Cranm., 
Gen. ; ‘speak earnestly,’ Cov. ; ‘ strength- 
en them,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘confirm,’ Bish. ; 
‘avouch,’ Rhem. To the 
intent that] ‘That,’ Author. and all the 
other Vy. : the addition in the text seems 
necessary to obviate misconception of the 
meaning. Believed God] So 
Tynd., and sim. Wiel., ‘bel. to God:’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cran , al., ‘bel. in God.’ 
May] ‘ might,’ Auth. 

Practise] ‘Maintain,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘to 
pe abouen other,’ Wicl. ; ‘to go forwarde 
in,’ Tynd., Oran. ; ‘excel in,’ Cov. (both), 
Rhem. ; ‘ shewe forth,’ Bish. 

Are good, etc.] So Author., but observe 
that in Rec. the reading is Ta Kad k.7.A., 
which should have been translated ‘ the 
things which are, etc.,’ compare Scholef. 
Hints, p. 128 (ed. 8). 

9. Strifes, and contentions] ‘ Conten- 
tions and strivings,’ Auth. All the Vy. 
except Wiclif, Tynd., Coverd., place a 
comma after eis. 

10. A first] ‘ The first,’ Auth., Tynd., 
al. ; ‘oon and the second,’ Wiel. ; ‘ once 


Cuap. III. 11—15. 


TITUS. 


263 


admonition, shun ; @ knowing that he that is such is perverted, and 


sinneth being self-condemned. 


2 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, use dili- 
gence to come unto me to Nicopolis: for there I have determmed 


to winter. 


13 Worward zealously on their journey Zenas the lawyer 


and Apollos, that nothing be wanting unto them. ™ And let ours 
also learn to practise good works for the necessary wants, that they 


be not unfruitful. 


15 Aj] that are with me salute thee. 


in the faith. 
Grace Ge with you all. 


or twise admonition,’ Gen. 

Shun] Similarly Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
‘eschew’ [‘scheuen’]: ‘reject,’ Auth., 
Cron.; ‘avoyde,’ Tynd., Cov., Genev., 
Bish., Rhem. The translation of Auth., 
though lexic. tenable, appears stronger 
than the use of raparetodat in these Epp. 
will fully warrant ; see notes. The trans- 
lation *‘ refuse,’ 1 Tim. v. 11 (Author.), 
would not here be suitable, as the con- 


text affords no clew to the character of - 


the refusal; the meaning is simply ‘ have 


nothing to do with,’ ‘monere desine ;’ 
. 


see notes in loc. 

11. Perverted] So Tynd., Cran., Gen.: 
‘ subverted,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. 
Self-condemned] ‘ Condemned of himself,’ 
Auth., sim. Bish. ; ‘dampned bi his owne 
dome,’ Wiclif, and similarly Tyndal 
(‘by his owne judgment’), and remain- 
ing Vv. 

12. Shall send] So Auth. and nearly 
all Vv.: Coverd. (Test.), with scrupulous 
accuracy, ‘shall have sent.” This latter 
translation, though perhaps critically ex- 
act, appears to have been very rarely 
adopted by our Translators (compare 
Matth. xxi. 40, Mark viii. 38, John iv. 
25, xvi. 13, Acts xxiii. $35, Rom. xi. 27, 
1 Cor. xvi. 3), and except where striot 
accuracy may be required, or where an 
. idiomatic turn (as in 1 Tim. y. 11) adds 


Salute them that love us 


force and perspicuity, is best avoided, as 
not fully in accordance with our usual 
mode of expression. Use 
diligence] ‘Be diligent,’ Author., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘high thou to, ete.,’ 
Wicl. ; ‘make spede,’ Coverd.; ‘make 
hast,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘hasten,’ Rhem. 
There I have] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem. : 
‘T have determined there,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. ; ‘dwelle in wynter there,’ 
Wiel. ; 

13. Forward zealously, etc.] ‘ Bring Z, 
etc.....on their journey diligently,’ Auth., 
and in similar order, Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; 
‘bisili bifor sende,’ Wicl.; ‘set forward 
....carefully,’ Rhem.: the rest mainly as 
Auth. 

14. Ours] So Auth. and all Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘ our men.’ 

Practise] ‘ Maintain,’ Auth. ; ‘ excel in,’ 
Tynd. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
‘be governouris in ;” Gen., ‘exercise.’ 
The necessary wants] ‘ Necessary uses,’ 
Author. and the other Vv. except Tynd., 
Cranm., Gen., ‘as far forth as nede re- 
quyreth.’ 

15. Salute] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: 
‘greet,’ Auth., Wicl. (but ‘ grete’ above), 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. As the 
same word (aomdé(eoSa) is used in both 
cases, a change seems scarcely desirable, 
All| Auth. adds * ‘ Amen.’ 


END. 


ian ay a ay 


2 


Re erty 
4s Vi 




















) i 
je 
% \ 
: eh 
ee 
ot 
? 
. \ 
i 
: 
: 
Be 
ae e 
Tau 5 
¥ 





by, 
Wis) 


Welk My i 
NYS 








a 


Awaits 
ryiny 


Wy 





fin 





